human factors in the naval environment: a review of …
TRANSCRIPT
": UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION
i * National Defence De3fense nationaleResearch and Bureau de rechercheDevelopment Branch et developpement
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 89/220September 1989
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE NAVAL ENVIRONMENT:A REVIEW OF MOTION SICKNESS AND
BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS
J. L. Colwell
OY)N
DTICS ECECTEl NOV 20198ii
IB D
Defence Centre deResearch (V Recherches pour laEstablishment DefenseAtlantic Atlantique
Canadai
nro. fi ,r " I m IIl
DEFENCE RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT ATLANTIC CENTRE DE RECHERCHES POUR LA DtFENSE ATLANTIQUES, 0 1 E GF \ nnn nFs TuLFI Ch i ,i
UNLIMITED DISTRIBUTION
I l/National Defence Defense nationaleResearch and Bureau de rechercheDevelopment Branch et d6veloppement
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE NAVAL ENVIRONMENT:A REVIEW OF MOTION SICKNESS AND
BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS
J. L. Colwell
September 1989
Approved by L.J. Leggat Distribution Approved byDirector/Technical Division
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 89/220
Defence Centre deResearch Recherches pour laEstablishment D6fenseAtlantic • Atlantique
Canad
ABSTRACT
Two types of motion-induced problems affecting human performance in the naval environ-ment are reviewed; motion sickness and biodynamic problems. Methods for predicting theincidence of motion sickness are described and evaluated, and problems associated withmodeling complex motions are discussed. References for quantifying habituation are citedand methods for defining the severity of motion sickness symptoms are described. Biody-namic problems are briefly discussed, including the low-frequency, large-amplitude problemsof motion-induced interruptions (MII) and fatigue; and the higher-frequency problems ofmanual control and vision. Methodologies and criteria for evaluating human performancewithin the systems approach to seakeeping assessment are discussed and topics for futurework are recommended.
RESUME
L'6tude porte sur deux types de problmes dus au mouvement qui influence le rendementde l'homme dans un environnement naval: le mal des transports et les profl'mes biody-namiques. Des mdthodes permettant de prdvoir l'incidetce du mal des transports sontddcrites et 6valudes, et des probl~mes lids i la moddlisatioit de mouvements complexes sontexposds. On donne des rdfdrences sur la quantification de l'accoutumance et on ddcrit desmrthodes pour d6finir la gravit6 des sympt6m'es du mal des transports. Les problbmesbiodynamiques sont bridvement exposds; on traite des problýmes i basse frdquence et ýgrande amplitude liUs aux interruptions dues aux mouvements (IDM) et ýL la fatigue, dem~me que des probl~mes i plus haute frdquence intervenant dans le contr6le manuel et lavision. Les mdthodes et les crit~res permettant d'6valuer le rendement humain (dans lecadre de l'approche des systbmes de l'6valuation de la tenue h la mer) sont d.6crites et desrecommandations sont faites au sujet des thbmes • explorer au cours de futurs travaux derecherche.
&;cestson iror
VN~sQA& 1DTIC TAPUzriwfleufl od []
Justtfteattn-
Di Dtrlhut i l/
Availa*bility Codes-"Avail and/or
D Sooo Ial
.,1 i ii
Contents
ABSTRACT i
RESUMEt ii
NOTATION v
INTRODUCTION 1
PART I: MOTION SICKNESS 2
1 Causes of Motion Sickness 2
2 Literature Surveys, Reviews and Bibliographies 3
3 Standards 3
3.1 International Standard ISO 2631/3 ....................... 3
3.2 British Standards Institution BS 6841 ..................... 4
3.3 M ilitary Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Predicting the Incidence of Motion Sickness 5
4.1 Motion Sickness Incidence (MSl) ........................ 54.1.1 Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Vomiting Incidence (VI) ............................. 7
4.2.1 Evaluation ......... ................................ 94.2.2 Corrections to VI Method ........ ........................ 11
5 Complex Motions 11
5.1 Summary of Experiments ......... ............................ 15
6 Habituation 15
6.1 Summary of Experiments and Observations ....... .................. 16
7 Symptoms and Severity of Sickness 17
7.1 Motion Sickness Symptomatology Severity (MSSS) ................... 17
7.2 Drowsiness, Lethargy and Fatigue ....... ....................... 18
7.3 Illness Rating (IR) ......... ................................ 187.4 Symptom Severity vs. Sickness Incidence vs. Performance .............. 19
iii
8 Other Topics 20
8.1 Subjective Motion (SM) ......... ............................. 208.2 Ride Quality ........... ................................... 20
8.3 Drug Therapy ........................................... 21
8.4 Susceptibility .......... ................................... 21
8.5 Simulator Sickness ......... ................................ 22
8.6 Space Sickness ........... .................................. 22
PART II: BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS 22
9 Overview 22
10 Whole-Body Motion (WBM) 23
10.1 Motion-Induced Interruptions (MII) ...................... 23
10.2 Motion-Induced Fatigue (MIF) ......................... 23
11 Whole-Body Vibration, WBV 24
11.1 Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.2 M anual Control . .. . ... .. . .. ... .. . . .. ... .. . .. .. . . . 26
11.3 V ision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
11.4 Repeated Shock . ... .. . .. . .. ... .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . . 28
11.5 S--bjective M agnitude .............................. 28
11.6 Ride Quality and Ride Comfort ........ ......................... 28
11.7 Low Frequency Considerations ........ ......................... 29
11.8 Complex Motions ......... ................................. 29
PART III: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30
12 Discussion: Evaluating Human Performance 30
12.1 Methodology ........... ................................... 30
12.2 Criteria ............ ...................................... 31
13 Recommendations 32
Acknowledgements 33
FIGURES 34
APPENDIX: Comparison of MSI and VI Methods 39
PART IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
M OTION SICKNESS ................................. 43
BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS . ........................... .. 56
iv
NOTATION
a vertical acceleration (m/s 2 )
ACV Air Cushion Vehicle (hovercraft)
ANV Advanced Naval Vehicles (e.g. hydrofoil, ACV, SES)
d dose parameter used in VI method [97]
f frequency (Hz)
fe encounter frequency (Hz)
FDPB Fatigue-Decreased Proficiency Boundary, ISO 2631/1 [76]
MIF Motion-Induced Fatigue
MII Motion-Induced Interruption
MSI Motion Sickness Incidence predicted by the "MSI" method of O'Hanlon,McCauley, et al. [126, 109]
SES Surface Effect Ship
SWATH Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull (vecsel)
t duration of exposure, MSI method, and, in general, time
T duration of exposure, VI method
To modal period (sec)
UNREP Underway replenishment at sea (i.e. from ship)
V1 Vomiting Incidence per unit vertical acceleration, (%/ms- 2 )
VI Vomiting Incidence predicted by the "VI" method of Lawther and Griffin,1987 [97]
VIobs Vomiting Incidence: observed by Lawther and Griffin [96]
VREP Vertical replenishment at sea (i.e. from helicopter)
WBM Whole-Body Motion
WBV Whole-Body Vibration
WF Weighting factor used in calculating VI
we encounter frequcncy (rad/s)
L4; wave modal frequency (rad/s)
(3/3 significant wave height
v
INTRODUCTION
The ultimate goal of work on human pcrformance in the naval environment is to developmethods and criteria which pcrmit quantitative analysis of human performance and itsdegradation due to motion-induced problems. The vast amount of literature addressing thisand related topics indicates that this goal has not yet been realized, but some contemporarymethods and much of the experimental work are of direct relevance. The major purposesfor this review are to identify promising methods and experimental data, and to recommeidtopics for future work.
This review considers two aspects of motion-induced problems: motion sickness andbiodynamic problems. Traditionally, these two aspects of human pcrformance have beenseparated on the basis of frequency; low frequency motions being the regime of motionsickness, and higher frequencies that of biodynamic problems. The contemporary literatureshows that this is not true in the naval environment, where significant biodynamic problemsare encountered at low frequencies.
The Naval Environment
For the purposes of this review, the naval environment is defined as the combination ofnaval population and the motions to which it is exposed. These two components may beconsidered as an integral unit for many purposes, but they must be considered separatelywhen appropriate. The naval population is predominantly male and, for reasons discussedlater, it is generally less susceptible to motion sickness than the general public. For anyparticular type of vessel, the motions experienced are the product of ocean environment,vessel characteristics, and operating procedures.
Arrangement of Review
This review is separated into four parts: Part I considers motion sickness; Part II considersbiodynamic problems; Part III discusses performance evaluation and presents recommen-dations for future work; and, Part IV contains the bibliography.
As indicated by the table of contents for this review, the majority of effort is devotedto motion sickness. Part I introduces theories on the causes of motion sickness, identifiesdesign standards, describes contemporary methods for predicting the incidence of motionsickness and evaluates their applicability for the naval environment, cites a large number ofdocuments which contain useful information for modeling habituation (i.e. acclimatization),describes methods used to classify and assess the severity of motion sickness symptums, andcites key documents on other aspects of motion sickness Pot of direct relevance to the navalenvironment.
Part II on biodynamic problems begins by discussing the "whole-body motion" (WBM)problems of motion-induced interruptions (MII) and long-term, motion-induced fatigue.These WBM problems occur in relatively large-amplitude motions, at frequencies signifi-cantly below the traditional 1 Hz division between motion sickness and higher-frequency"whole-body vibration" (WBV,') problems. The sections on WBV problems identify top-ics of particular interest to the naval community and provide a cross-referenced listing of
citations, arranged in the following categories: design standards and suggestions for theirimprovement; manual control; vision; subjective motion; and, ride comfort and ride qualityassessment methods.
Part III discusses evaluating human performance in terms of the methodology andtypes of criteria that may be required. Also, a number of recommendations are presented
on modifying and developing methods to model human response and performance in the
naval environment, and on devising experiments and conducting at-sea observations toextend the currat knowledge base.
Part IV contains the bibliography, which is separated into two sections, one on mo-tion sickness and one on biodynamic problems. The documents in each section are orderedalphabetically, and papers which address both topics are listed in both sections. The docu-ments are also numbered sequentially from the start of the motion sickness section throughto the end of the biodynamics section. All documents are cited in the text by number (e.g.
[1091), and documents of particular interest are also cited by author and year. Most. but
not all, of the documents in the bibliography are cited in Part I and II.
PART I: MOTION SICKNESS
1 Causes of Motion Sickness
Theories on the causes, or etiology, of motion sickness generally agree that the primarycause is "sensory conflict", induced by one or both of the following mechanisms 1139]:
1. visual-inertia conflict, where the motion perceived from visual stimuli conflicts withthat perceived by the vestibular receptors (i.e. inner ear: semicircular canals andotolith organs);
2. canal-otolith conflict, in the absence of visual stimuli, a conflict in preceived motionbetween the semicircular canals (angular motion sensors) and the otolith organs (linear
motion sensors).
In each mechanism, at least three combinations of sensory conflict exist. For example.in visual-inertia conflict, motion sickness can be induced by:
1. simultaneous but conflicting visual and vestibular information(e.g. moving the head while w(aring an optical device that distorts vision);
2. visual perception of motion in the absence of vestibular stimuli(e.g. motion sickness in a stationary flight simulator); and,
3. vestibular perception of motion in the absence of visual stimuli
(e.g. elevator sickness).
A variety of references provide further insight on the causes of motion sickness, incluid-ing: Money, 1970 (1201; Reason and Brand, 1975 [1.13]; Reason, 1978 [139, 1.10]; O(man.
2
1983 [129]; and Benson, 1988 [16]. Additional references of particular interest to the navalcommunity are: Newman, 1976 [124]; Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1980 (174], Muir, 198:3[122]; Thomas, Guignard and Willens, 1983 [165]: and Pingree, 1988 [135].
Before examining the contemporary literature on motion sickness, it is worth empha-sizing that the effects of motion sickness on performance at sea can be minimized by properattention to "human factors design". Newqian, 1976 [124], and Bittner and Guignard, 1985[17], discuss important aspects of designing shipboard workplaces, equipment and tasks.which are concisely summarized by five "human factors engineering principles" [17).
1. Locate critical stations near the ship's effective centre of rotation.
2. Minimize head movements (e.g. [A])
3. Align operator with a principal axis of the ship's hull
4. Avoid combining provocative sources (e.g. [36, 65])
5. Provide an external frame of reference
2 Literature Surveys, Reviews and Bibliographies
Money, 1970 [120] provides a comprehensive review of the motion sickness literaturebefore 1970.
Muir, 1983 [122), provides a " bibliography of the research carried out since the SecondWorld War on motion illness with particular reference to its prevention by drug treatment".
Other reviews and surveys on more specific aspects of motion induced sickness are citedin the appropriate sections of this document.
3 Standards
3.1 International Standard ISO 2631/3
International Standard 2631, Part 3 [77j, hereafter called ISO 2631/3, is the ISO standardfor evaluating human exposure to whole-body vibration for low frequencies. where motionsickness problems predominate. In summary:
"This part of ISO 2631" (i.e. part 3) "covers vibration transmitted to the bodyin the frequency range 0.1 to 0.63 Hz. This part of ISO 2631 applies especiallyto discrete-frequency and narrow-banded vibration and provisionally to randomor non-periodic vibrations within the specified frequency range".
ISO 2631/3 establishes limits on motion using "severe discomfort boundaries". Asshown in Figure 1, these boundaries are defined by contours of RMS acceleration (m/s 2) vs.frequency (Hz), for three durations of exposure (0.5, 2.0 and 8.0 hours). Subject to otherqualifications discussed in [77], these contours model the expected behaviour of "infrequent
3
travellers" (e.g. ferry passengers). At any particular frequency and duration, the ISOcontour defines the acceleration at which approximately 10 percent of the male population"will experience severe discomfort and temporary disability" from motion sickness. ISO alsostates, "women are apparently more prone to motion sickness than men", by approximate lv5 percent (i.e. the ISO 2631/3 contours in Figure 1 correspond to 15% incapacitation forfemales).
Allen, 1974 [3] provides a useful summary of experiments on motion sickness before1974, and its recommendations form the basis for much of ISO 2631/3.
Coe, 1987 [26], describes the "B&1K human response meter" [23], which determineswhen ambient motions have provided sufficient stimuli to reach the ISO 2631/3 criteria.
Pingree, 1988 [135], discusses deficiencies with ISO 2631 for application to the ma-rine environment. Since this standard is primarily concerned with motion sickness and/orcomfort, the effects on performance are not quantified.
3.2 British Standards Institution BS 6841
The British Standards Institution BS 6841, 1987 [22], pr,-sents quantitative guidelines forestimating the incidence of motion sickness (i.e. percent of exposed population who vomit)from a parameter called the "motion sickness dose value" (MSDV). This approach is basedon the "vomiting incidence" (VI) method of Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97]. As describedlater in Section 4.2 of this review, this method is not well suited to the naval environment.
3.3 Military Standards
US Military Standard for human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipmentand facilities, MIL-STD-1472 [168], states (in paragraph 5.8.4.1.1.4):
"'in order to prevent motion sickness. very low frequency vibration should notexceed the limits of Figure 43"
where, the "Figure 43" mentioned above defines contours of 10'7( sickness incidence forexposure times from 1/2 through 8 hours exposure, using the method of McCauley et al.,1976 [109]. This method is described in Section 4.1, below.
ISO 2631/1, Whole-Body Vibration
International Standard 2631/1 [76]. hereafter called ISO 2631/1, is the ISO standard forevaluating human exposure to whole-body vibration for higher frequencies (I to 90 liz),where biodynamic problems predominate (degraded motor skills, blurred vision. etc). Thisstandard is not of direct interest for motion sickness: however, methods defined in ISO2631/1 for reducing complex vertical motions and combined vertical and horizontal motionsare recommended for applicat;on with ISO 2631/3 (in the absence of better methods).
Von Gierke. 197.5 [169], discusses ISO 2631/1, and describes preliminary work on lowerfrequencies which !ater became incorporated in the ISO 2631/3 motion sickness standard.
.1
4 Predicting the Incidence of Motion Sickness
This section describes and evaluates the two following methods for predicting the incidenceof motion-induced sickness:
1. Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI), O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126], and McCauleyet al., 1976 [109]; and,
2. Vomiting Incidence (VI), Lawther and Griffin, 1987 and 1988 [97, 99].
In both cases, the incidence of motion sickness is expressed in units of percent (%),representing the percent of the exposed population which has been or is being sick, afterexposure of a specified duration.
As discussed later in various sections, both methods share three significant problemsfor modeling the naval environment: (1) they are based on single-frequency experimentaldata; (2) the ameliorating effects of habituation due to long-term or repeated exposure arenot modeled; and (3) the predicted incidence of motion sickness (i.e. percent vomiting) isnot necessarily a good measure of hum :i performance.
4.1 Motion Sickness Incidence (MSI)
O'tHanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126], and McCauley et al., 1976 [109], describe labora-tory experiments on motion sickness in which humans were exposed to single-frequency.sinusoidal, vertical motions. The resulting empirical model introduced in O'Hanlon andMcCauley, 1974 [126], and extended in McCauley et al., 1976 [109], defines a method forpredicting Motion Sickness Incidence, MSI (%), from the magnitude, frequency and dura-tioj. of vertical accelerations.
Following McCauley et al., 1976 [109]:
MSI = 100 ¢(za)'(z•)
where D(z) is the cumulative distribution function of the standardized normal variable z,
4(Z) dx
The standardized normal variables za and z' are defined as follows.
log(a) - i'a(f)
Ca
I zt - PZa log(t) - fitZt -- • ' Zt --=
where a is the RMS magnitude of the vertical acceleration (g), f is the frequency (Hz) of a,and t is the duration of exposure (main). The remaining parameters are defined as follows,to fit the O'llatIon/McCauley experimental data (i.e. references [109] and [126]).
.5
= 0.87 + 4.36 log(f) + 2.73(log(f)) 2
jut =1.46
Ua• 0.47
at= 0.76
p = -0.75
After manipulation, the McCauley et al., 1976 [109]. method for predicting the MotionSickness Incidence, MSI (/), reduces to the following simple equations.
NISI ý- 100 •~ad~•
2.12Slog(a) - 9.277log(f) - 5.809(log(f)) 2 - 1.851
z' = 1.134za + 1.989log(t) - 2.904
Values of 4 for positive values of za and z- can be obtained from Figure 2. or frommost standard mathematical handbooks. For negative values of za and z,. the followingrelationship can be used.
4.1.1 Evaluation
The MSI method is a simple and concise algorithm for predicting the incidence of mo-tion sickness induced by exposure to sinusoidal, vertical accelerations. The method usesa statistically-based, response surface which models the laboratory observations from twolandmark parametric studies on motion induced sickness [109, 126].
The MSI method forms the basis of most contemporary standards for cvaluating motionsickness (e.g. ISO 2631/3 [77]. and MIL-STD-1472 [168]). Provided it is used withii,the range of parametric variations on which it is based, the MSI method is not subjectto constraints or limitations other than those inherent in the original experiments, andits merit is determined by how well it models the experimental results. The appendixsummarizes calculations by the current author in which estimates from the MSI methodare compared with the original O'tlanlon/McCauley experimental data [109, 126], and withat-sea observations of Lawther and Griffin, 1986 [96]. These calculations show the MSImethod models these data to within an average error of 1 percent, and standard deviationof 6 percent.
Applebee, McNamara and Baitis, 1980 [6], observe that the MSI method significantlyunderestimates the incidence of motion sickness experienced in trials with USCG cutters:however, the current author suggests that this error is primarily due to the fact that theprocedure used in [6] did not correctly model the effects of exposure duration. In brief.these trials were conducted by travelling around an octagonal course, where the length ofeach side of the octagon was determine(d by the distance covered in 30 minutes of steaming
"6
at a constant speed. The MSI predictions used in [6] are based on 30 minute exposures;however, the actual duration of exposure was very much greater. For example. the 3 to4 hour transit to reach the trials area is not included, nor are the cumulative 30 minuteincrements associated with each leg of the octagon. The current author also notes that the
motion environment experienced in these trials changed very rapidly (i.e. every 30 minutes).and that the trials were held over four consecutive days. Thus an adequate model of theseconditions should consider cumulative exposure duration, changing motions and the effectsof habituation.
Section 5 discusses using the MSI method to predict motion sickness incidence in com-plex motions.
Bittner and Guignari, 1985 [17], describe a method to assess the relative MSI (RMSI)at different positions in the ship, based on 4-hour MSI (to model the 4-hour watch-standingpractice); however, since the MSI model used for RMSI does not consider habituation, theproposed distinction between 2-hour and 4-hour MSI predictions is somewhat questionable.
4.2 Vomiting Incidence (VI)
Recent work by Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97], describes a procedure for estimating theincidence of motion sickness, expressed as the parameter "vomiting iiiidence", VI (X/). Thisvomiting incidence is, essentially, the same quantity as the McCauley et al., 1976 (109], MSIparameter, but it is identified by the symbol VI to emphasize the difference in methodologyby which it is calculated. Note that this Lawther and Griffin method is incorporated in theBritish Standards Institution BS 6841, 1987 [22].
Following Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [971, VI (%) is,
VI= K d = 3 d85
where K is an empirical constant and d is the following "dose" parameter which quantifies
cumulative exposure to vertical accelerations.
d (T ) 1/2
where af,(t) is the frequency-weighted, vertical acceleration (m/s 2 ) and T is the durationof e,,puure (s) to aiU(I). Thus, d has units of (m s- 5 ), and K has units of (%/m s-s).
The constant value of K = 30/8.5 (%/m s- 1 5 ) is recommended by Lawther and Griffin[97], based on surveys of ferry passengers described in Lawther and Griffin, 1986 and 1988[96, 98], and on earlier experimental work by McCauley et al., 1976 [109], and Alexanderet al., 1947 [2].
The symbol aif(t) is used here instead of the symbol a(t) used by Lawther and Griffin.1987 [97], to emphasize that the accelerations should be frequency-weighted before inte-gration. This dose concept was described by Griffin, 1984 (601, for application to higher-frequency, whole body vibration problems, and has recently been applied to motion-inducedsickness by Lawther and Griffin, 1986 [96].
-- nmunum n nul l I I HI~ m m m '" 7
Note that earlier work on frequency-domain modeling of motion sickness incidence incomplex motions, described by Malone, 1981 [105] (following Jex, DiMarco and Clement.1977 [801, and Donnelley, 1976 [37]), used a very similar approach, as discussed in Section 5of this review.
The current author derives the following procedure for calculating Lawther and Griffin'sVI using a single-frequency weighting factor.
IT 1l/2 /T \ /d= a~ltd 2 a 2(t)dt WF(f,) = a,,,v/'WNF(f,•)
where a(t) is the un-weighted vertical acceleration (m/s 2), arm, is the un-weighted, RMS.'ertical acceleration (m/s 2 ), and WF(fm) is Lawther and Griffin's frequency-weighting fac-
tor (dimensionless), applied at the modal frequency, fin, of the acceleration spectrum.
For narrow-banded motions (as defined in Section 5), this approximation should be verygood, and for single-frequency sinuisoidal motion, it is exact. This approximation for broad-banded motion is briefly dliscussed in the following section. In any case, this approximationprovides a convenient simplification for describing the Lawther and Griffin VI method.
At any frequency, f, the weighting factor, WF(f), is defined as follows.
VIUf) VI(f)WF(f) = -- = -VIMAX 23.0
where VI(f) is Lawther and Griffin's "normalized vomiting" and V-IMAX = 23.0 (%/ms- 2)is the maximum value of normalized vomiting. VI(f) is calculated as the ratio of observedvomiting incidence, VI(f), to acceleration, a(f).
Ni(f) VI( f)a(f)
Figure 3, following Figure 8 of [97]1, defines VI(f) for an exposure duration of 2 hours,based on "normalized" experimental data of McCauley et al.. 1976 [109]. Also, this figureshows Lawther and Griffin's frequency-weightings, defined as line-segment approximationsto the experimental data [97], from which the value VIMAX = 23.0 (%/ms- 2 ) is derived.
VI(f) can be calculated as follows.
V-(f) I 10 {Alog(f) + B}
where A and B are the slope and offset of the approximating line-segments shown in Fig-ure 3. Table 1 shows values for A and B, calculated by the current author from a re-analysisof the original data in McCauley et al., 1976 [109], using the method described above.
After manipulation, Lawther and Griffin's method [97] for calculating vomiting inci-dence, VI (%), reduces to the following simple equation (for single-frequency and narrow-banded motions).
1 Section 4.2.2 describes corrections to [971 which are incorporated in Figure 3
S. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 1: Coefficients A and B for Calculatinig VI
Frequency A I B(Hz) (log (%/m s-2) log-I (Hz)) (log (%/m s-2))
0.028 to 0.105 2.228 3.4590.105 to 0.129 0.928 2.1870.129 to 0.270 0.0 1.3620.270 to 0.495 -2.060 0.1910.495 to 0.850 -3.490 -0.246
VI = 0.0153 armsHT 10 {Alog(f) + B}
where arms is the RMS vertical acceleration (m/s 2 ), T is the duration of exposure (s) to a,
A and B are the frequency-weighting coefficients described above, f is the frequency (Hz)of a, and the constant 0.0153 is defined by the ratio K/VIMAX = 30/85 x 1/23.
4.2.1 Evaluation
The VI method (also used in BS 6841 [22]) is a simple, semi-empirical method for predictingthe incidence of motion sickness from the magnitude, frequency and duration of exposureto vertical accelerations. It relies on two important assumptions to model human responseto vertical accelerations:
1. at constant frequency, vomiting incidence is a linear function of RMS magnitude of
vertical acceleration; and,
2. vomiting incidence is a linear function of the dose parameter.
As discussed below, these assumptions are not valid in the typical naval environment.The first assumption is used to "normalize" vomiting, (i.e. VI = VI/a), and forms thebasis for the empirical frequency-weighting used to calculate dose. The second assumptiondefines the factor K used to calculate vomiting incidence from dose (i.e. VI = K d).
It is important to note that the limitations discussed below do not affect the VImethod's application to the passenger ferry environment upon which it is based; however,these limitations strongly suggest that it is not well suited to model the naval environment.Also, it is important to separate the method being criticised from the data on which it isbased. The Lawther and Griffin data are subject to a variety of exclusions and manipu-lations [96], including balancing results for sex, and excluding respondents under 15 yearsof age. One result is "a slight population weighting towards the higher age group (whencompared with the general population statistics)". It is not clear how well these manipu-lated results represent the naval community; however, most empirical parameters used byLawther and Griffin are based on the experiments of O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126].
9
and McCauley et a!., 1976 [109]. The subjects used in these experiments are a fairly goodrepresentation of the relatively young, male naval population (not considering habituation).
Figu;ie 4 shoks observed vomiting incidence as a function of acceleration magnitudeat constant frequency, for exposure duration of 115 minutes, from the O'Ilanlon/McCauleyexperiments [109, 126]. A limited sub-set of thic 4ata is sbnw, t • Figure 3 i, Lawther andGriffin, 1987 [97].
From Figure 4 (and from other [109] data at different durations), it is apparent that thefirst assumption (i.e. VI = A(a) + B) is valid for VI up to approximately 40 (%), but nothigher. Kanda, Goto and Tanabe, 1977 [83], suggest a log-log relationship between motionsickness incidence and acceleration magnitude. Figure 5 shows the Lawther and Griffinfrequency-weightings (dashed-line) and experimental motion sickness incidence data [1091normalized by a,,,, as a function of frequency, for constant accelerations. All of the datapoints shown in this figure are for single-frequency, sinudoidal motion, for which the single-frequency weighting approximation introduced earlier is an exact solution. The acceleration-depen&dnt error relative to the frequency-weighting curve shown in Figure 5 suggests thatthe normalizing procedure does not produce a acceleration-independent parameter (i.e.vomiting incidence is not a simple, linear function of acceleration magnitude).
The second assumption identified above of a linear relationship between dose and VIis used to evaluate the empirical A' factor, from which VI = K d. Figure 6 shows observedVI vs. dose for the MSI data, and includes a datum at relatively high dose (ýz 270 ms-Is5 )which is not used in [97]. The two curve-fits shown in Figure 6 are the Lawther and Griffinlinear K factor (solid-line), and a non-linear curve (dashed line). The non-linear curveappears to provide a better fit to the data. This observation is further substantiated byFigure 7, which plots VI as a function of exposure duration, T, and compares observations([109], f = 0.25 Hz, a = 0.333 g) with the MSI and VI methods.
Another consequence of the linear K assumption is that the VI method predicts 100 (%)sickness incidence at dose values greater than 283. Observations and experiments clearlyshow that 100 (%) sickness incidence is rarely experienced in the marine environment, asdiscussed briefly in Section 8.4.
These criticisms of the VI methodology must be evaluated in terms of the method'sability to estimate VI in specific environments. The VI method works well for the rela-tively low dose passenger ferry environment [96, 97, 99]; however, this method significantlyoverestimates VI for relatively high dose values. As shown in the appendix, the VI methodmodels the O'Htanlon/McCauley experimental data [126, 109] and at-sea observations ofLawther and Griffin, 1986 [96], to within an average error of 4 percent, and standard de-viation of 8 percent. Close inspection of the data in this appendix shows error in theVI estimate increases rapidly with increasing dose. Also, note that the incidence of mo-tion sickness is overestimated by an approximately constant value of about 4 percent forsingle-frequency (Tables A.1 and A.2) and broad-band motions (Table A.3). This suggeststhat using a single-frequency weighting procedure is not a bad approximation for "single-peaked", broad-banded motion as exhibited by the Lawther and Griffin data for monohullferries [96, 97, 99); however, this approach would not be appropriate for broad-band motionswith widely-distributed or multi-peaked response spectra (e.g. [99, 105, 163]). Section 5discusses predicting the incidence of motion sickness in complex motions.
10
The frigate/destroyer naval environwont has high values of dose relative to the pas-senger ferry environment. Some of the more obvious reasons for this include: the rela-tively short duration of exposure for ferries (hours) relative to warships (days/weeks); thelow acceleration magnitudes experienced on (large) ferrys relative to (small) warships (e.g.compare (96, 991 with (5, 153]); and the ferry's ability to cancel or re-route transits whenbad weather threatens. Since the VI method assumes VI N VNT, the relatively long durationof exposure on warships will produce large dose values where the assumption of linearitybetween VI and dose is clearly not valid. Also, it is likely that warships will experience highaccelerations for which the assumption of linearity between VI and acceleration magnitudeis not valid.
In summary, the VI method of Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97], is an adequate model ofmotion sickness incidence in the passenger ferry and other low dose environments (wherevertical motions predominate), but is not adequate for the relatively high dose naval envi-ronment.
4.2.2 Corrections to VI Method
The current author's Figure 3 differs from the corresponding Figure 8 in Lawther andGriffin, 1987 [97], for the following reasons.
1. The data of McCauley et al., 1976 [109], on which both figures are based were con-verted from units of gravities to units of m/s 2 using g = 9.807 m/s 2, rather thang = 10.0 m/s 2 as used in [97].
2. Comparing the original McCauley et al., 1976 [109], data with Figure 8 and Table IIof Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97], identifies the following discrepancies, noted belowin the form VI(f) ; i, where f is the frequency (Hz), and i is the value for normalizedvomiting (%/m s- 2 ):
(a) the Figure 8 [971 datum VI(0.167) ;, 35 should be VI(0.167)- 27.5;(b) the Figure 8 [97] data VI(0.18);s 35 and VI(0.20)> 29 are for a duration of 85
minutes, and so are excluded (all other data are for a duration of 115 minutes);and,
(c) the Figure 8 [97] datum VI(0.50)ýz 2.2 should be VI(0.50)ýz 7.5
These differences have a small and offsetting effect on the Lawther and Griffin, 1987[97], method for predicting VI; in fact the "corrected" Figure 3 shown here exhibits a betterfit to the original approximating line-segments than the original data in [97].
These corrections are implemented for completeness, and this discussion is providedin anticipation of questions concerning Figure 3 from readers familiar with Lawther andGriffin, 1987 [97].
5 Complex Motions
The phrase "complex motions" describes a wide variety of conditions. The following defi-nitions, consistent with ISO 2631/3, are used here:
11
"* single-frequency: one, constant-frequency sinusoid;
"* multiple-frequency: two or more superposed, constant-frequency sinusoids (im-plies a relatively low, finite number of waves, not broad-band);
"• narrow-band: all significant energy occurs within a single, one-third octave bandor less 2 ; and,
"* broad-band: significant energy occurs over more than one, one-third octave band.
The ISO 2631/1 and 2631/3 standards present frequency-dependent data to a basis ofcentre-frequencies of one-third octave bands. Depending on platform type and operatingconditions, typical response spectra show significant energy over from six to more thantwelve 1/3 octave banis [43, 95, 99, 278]. Thus, in terms of the above definitions, it is clearthat ship motions are broad-band.
When reading the literature on human response to motion, it is important to appre-ciate that some references appear to consider that multiple-frequency and broad-band aresynonymous; however, there are important differences. Ship motions in response to almostall realistic seaways are broad-banded, with spectral shapes varying from "single-peaked"for uni-directional, long-crested seas to evenly distributed and relatively flat response forshort-crested seas with a large spreading angle. On the other hand, motions in responseto seas with significant energy from two or more discrete wave systems will often be bothbroad-banded and multiple-frequency, with discrete peaks at different frequencies in theresponse spectra (e.g. simultaneous long-crested seas and decaying swells).
As described earlier, both the MSI and VI methods are closely based on the single-frequency, vertical motion experiments of O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126], and Mc-Cauley et al., 1976 [109]. In actual fact, it is more correct to regard these experiments asnarrow-banded, as shown by representative spectra in Guignard and McCauley, 1982 [66].for their "sinusiodal" control motion. Thus, the MSI method should be a reliable methodfor predicting the incidence of motion sickness in narrow-banded, vertical motions; how-ever, the naval environment is typically broad-banded and includes significant non-vertical
motions.
ISO 2361/3 suggests that when significant non-vertical motions exist... "especiallypitch and roll, it may be advisable to reduce the boundary accelerations by about 25%to maintain the same degree of protection". The current author notes that the contributionof pitch and roll to local vertical motions should be (and usually is) explictly included inall measurements or calculations of ship motion; however, the relative magnitude of non-vertical accelerations is another matter. Irwin and Goto, 1984 [75], observe (as expected)
significant motion sickness and related symptoms in low-frequency horizontal motions (i.e.various combinations of surge, sway and yaw). Since vertical motions predominate in many
marine environments, and motion sickness correlates well with vertical accelerations [96,99, 174], this is not discussed further in this review, but it is clear that vertical motions arenot necessary to produce motion sickness. Thus, when applying these methods to differentplatform types or operating procedures, the assumption that vertical motions predominate
2 An octave is the interval between two frequencies having the ratio 2.
12
should be verified (e.g. lateral motions may be very significant for long-term, towed-arrayoperations in oblique seas).
Using the MSI method to model multiple-frequency, vertical motions is discussed ina variety of sources. Guignard and McCauley, 1982 [66], describe experiments in whichparticipants were exposed to complex, vertical motion formed by the sum of two (narrow-banded) sinusoids, which combine to form a double-peaked energy spectrum. The measuredincidence of motion sickness was compared with the MSI method, and the results are sum-marized as follows.
"Certain motion conditions provoked unexpectedly high MSIs compared withthe control condition. It was found that R.M.S. acceleration is not reliable asthe sole predictor of MSI in complex motion. Further data must be obtainedbefore accurate prediction of MSI in broadband motion will be possible."
Malone, 1981 [105], Jex, DiMarco and Clement, 1977 [80], and Donnelley, 1976 [37],describe attempts to develop a frequency-domain model for predicting heave-induced MSIin broad band motions. A brief summary of this method is presented below, followingMalone, 1981 [105].
Assuming that the heave acceleration, i(t), can be decomposed into sine waves,
i(t) = E Ai(fi) sin (27rft + /3(t))
then it should be possible to generate an "effective acceleration", ý(t), for predicting MSI,as follows.
i4(t) Ji(t)W(f)df
where W(f) is a frequency-dependent weighting function.
As stated by Malone, 1981 [105], "it was originally hoped that this expression (i.e.W(f)) would provide a transformation or weighting variable which could generate a frequency-independent acceleration variable". The W(f) curve defined by Malone, 1981 [105], is es-sentially identical to the WF(f) frequency-weighting function described in Section 4.2, usedin Lawther and Griffin's VI method [97]. This similarity is not unexpected, since both theW(f) and WF(f) curves were derived from the MSI experiments of McCauley et al., 1976[109], and O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126].
The relationship between effective acceleration and MSI was explored using the RMSeffective heave acceleration, aMSi, as follows [80, 105].
a•MS= W(f)A(f)] df
where A(f) are the Fourier amplitudes of the heave acceleration.
As discussed in Ma&,. e, 1981 [105], this approach was not successful in modeling thecomplex-motion MSI experiments of Guinard and McCauley, 1981 [66], nor the simulated
13
SES complex-motion experiments described by Malone, 1981 [105] (see references [35, 37.80, 127, 166]).
Malone, 1981 [105], also discusses the desirability of developing an "equivalent motiondose" parameter, Y,
Y=
where T is the duration of exposure and F is some unknown function of the effectiveacceleration, •i; however, the (unreported) attempts to define the function F were notsuccessful.
The current author notes that if the Lawther and Griffin frequency-weighted accelera-tion, af,,, (see Section 4.2), is used for i, and F(li,) is defined as follows,
F(4,) = To f ,
then Y is related to Lawther and Griffin's dose parameter, d, by Y = d'.
Malone, 1981 [105], also comments on the need for more experimental work on motionsickness incidence in controlled, complex motions, as initiated by Guinard and McCauley.1981 [66].
Smith, 1982 [160], evaluates two approaches for modeling the complex-motion experi-ments by Guignard and McCauley [66], discussed above:
1. an "independent-effects approach", in which the overall MST is defined as the summinus the product of the single-frequency MSIsi.e. MSI(ij) = MSI(i) + MSI(j) - MSI(i)MSI(j);
2. a sum-of-squares approach which reduces the complex rmiodon to a single, equivalentacceleration, a0 , at a reference frequency using frequency-dependent weighting factors,wi, i.e. a0 = (wia, + wja,)1/2
Two variations on the last approach were considered, one using weighting factors fromthe O'Hanlon/McCauley (single-frequency) experiments [109, 126], and the other usingweighting factors derived from the complex motion experiments being modeled [66]. Onlythe last approach using the complex-motion weightings is able to predict the "unexpectedlyhigh MSIs" noted in the preceeding paragraph; however, since this method is essentiallyreplicating data on which it is based, and since the amount of empirical data is limited, anyconclusions must be tentative, at best.
A variety of authors report on efforts to improve statistical models for predicting mo-tion sickness incidence for exposure to both single-frequency and complex waveform verticalmotions, including: Burns, 1984 [25]; Mauro and Smith, 1983 [108]; and, Mauro and Smith,1981 [107]. These papers suggest a "statistical mixture model" in which part of the pop-ulation is susceptible to motion sickness after relatively short exposure and the remainderis not. The distribution of sickness (time to first emesis) of the susceptible population isbest fitted by a Weibull distribution; however, more experimental data are required beforesignificant improvements in modeling accuracy can be achieved.
14
ISO 2631/3 recommends using the "summed weighted" method described in Section 4.2(note 2) of ISO 2631/1 for reducing broad-band motion to an equivalent single-frequencyacceleration; however, ISO 2631/3 also notes that research into complex, low-frequencymotions is very limited, and so the ISO 2631/1 method is recommended in lieu of bettermethods. Note that this method was devised to reduce narrow-band motions to equivalentaccelerations at the centre frequency of discrete 1/3 octave bands [37, 76]. Using this methodto reduce relatively broad-band motions to a single-frequency, equivalent acceleration forassessing motion sickness is not justified, especially for multiple-frequency, broad-bandedmotions.
5.1 Summary of Experiments
The following citations contain experimental and observational data of special interest tothe naval community. Most, but not all have been cited previously.
Laboratory: [4, 35, 66, 80, 105, 109, 127, 126, 166]
At-sea: [5, 24, 72, 83, 95, 96, 98, 99, 134, 173, 172, 174, 180]
6 Habituation
Glaser, 1966 [52]; Money, 1970 [120]; and, Wiker, Pepper and McCauley. 1980 [174] pro-vide useful introductions to the processes of adaptation and habituation. The followingterminology from Money, 1970 [120], is used here.
"* adaptation describes three different phenomena:
1. the "change in response to stimuli", especially a diminution of response("response decline");
2. "the change in bodily mechanisms that is responsible for the response decline",and,
3. "the acquisition or process of acquiring the change in bodily mechanisms"
"* habituation is the "acquisition or process of acquiring the adaptive change and thedecrease in response".
Newman, 1976 [124], provides a good general discussion of habituation and of thehypothetical 'tracking' of habituation with a changing motion environment.
The requirement to model habituation in the naval environment is aptly demonstratedby results of simultaneous seakeeping trials with two RN frigates reported in Andrewsand Lloyd, 1980 [5]. During these trials, the ship with highest observed vomiting (37%)experienced average vertical accelerations of approximately 0.125 (g) RMS at the bridge.and the ship with lower observed vomiting (26%) experienced higher average accelerations ofapproximately 0.160 g. This discrepancy is explained by the relative durations of exposure[51; the ship with higher accelerations and lower vomiting was on its fourth day at sea, whilethe ship with lower accelerations and higher vomiting was on its second day.
15
In general, this section on habituation is concerned with identifying the references ofmost interest for developing methods to quantify habituation; however, it is useful to notesome instances where habituation does not behave as expected. Thomas, Guignard andWillems, 1983 [165], discuss experiments on simulated SES motions (see [35, 105. 166]),and notes "a somewhat anomalous finding in these studies was the lack of habituation".A few possible explanations for this observation are advanced, including [165, 166]; "ex-tremely severe and unusual motion, when continuous and prolonged, may however precludehabituation"; but the lack of a clear cause indicates further study may be warrarted. Also,Newman, 1976 [124), describes the somewhat rare but existing phenomenon of "reverse ha-bituation" (e.g. one becomes habituated to the practice of vomiting in response to motion).
The papers cited later in this section cover a wide variety of experimental and obser-vational conditions, some of which may appear not relevant to habituation in the marineenvironment; however, it seems generally accepted that rates of gaining and losing habitua-tion are relatively constant in very different circumstances [57]. Note that, since habituationis specific to the stimuli involved [32, 52, 58, 591, it is important to distinguish between ratesof acquiring and losing habituation, which are of interest here, and the ability to transferhabituation between environments.
Two exceptions to the general applicability of literature on habituation are: (1) experi-ments where habituation is quantified by measuring optical responses (e.g. [28, 38, 101, 141,144, 145]); and, (2) habituation in space flight [118, 130]. In the first case, optical responsesare generated by induced coriolis forces (tilting the head while rotating at high angularvelocity) and by the "caloric" test (irrigating the ear with relatively warm or cool water).Two measures of optical response are; the oculogyral illusion (OGI) and nystagmus; bothhave a duration measured in tens of seconds. The OGI response quantifies the duration ofillusory movement of fixed objects (i.e. time from when the provocative stimulus stops towhen fixed objects appear fixed). Nystagmus responses are quantified by measuring decayrates of eye rotations after exposure to provocative stimuli. These optical responses are usedto examine the physiological basis of vestibular habituation, and have direct application tothe aerospace environment; however, the current author cannot identify any methodology toapply optical response experiments in the naval (marine) environment. In the second case.work on habituation in space flight and in terrestrial situations with long-term exposureto reduced gravity (e.g. underwater simulation of space), introduces a new physiologicalphenomenon; shifting body fluids becomes a major cause of (or contributor to) motion sick-ness. Most, if not all, of the work on space sickness incidence and habituation in space isnot applicable to the naval environment.
Some of the references cited below are from the literature on drug therapy. The resultsfor "drugged" participants are not for application here; however, all cited drug studiesinclude "placebo" control groups, which are of direct interest (see Section 8.3 for generalcitations on drug therapy).
6.1 Summary of Experiments and Observations
Habituation quantified: [52, 69, 72, 83, 109, 113, 170, 179]
Relative habituation: [3, 5, 24., 28, 39, 57 58, 124, 134, 137, 173]
16
S ........ .... . .. - --- -- • = - m,,,,, ran ,unt w munnounnm in mumnm ni
7 Symptoms and Severity of Sickness
Methods described earlier for estimating the incidence of motion sickness and the referencescited on habituation suggest that an improved model for predicting motion sickness in thenaval environment may be possible; however, as noted by a number of authors (e.g. [ 124,165, 174]), significant motion sickness symptoms can be present with no or low incidenceof vomiting. Thus, it is useful to examine motion sickness symptoms and methods used toevaluate their effects on performance.
Money, 1970 [120]; Reason, 1978 [139]; and, Muir, 1983 [122] identify the symptomsassociated with motion sickness and describe their progression. Graybiel et al., 1968 [63].and Graybiel and Lackner, 1983 [57], describe a widely-used "malaise" scale for rating theseverity of motion sickness by observing its symptoms. A variety of self-rated, opinion-basedquestionnaires have been used, and one of particular interest to the naval community isdescribed by Applebee, McNamara and Baitis, 1980 [6]. Results of this subjective approachprovide valuable guidance; however, a general lack of objective data makes it very difficult toquantify the degradation of performance. For example, subjective data from questionnairesurveys of two RN frigates [134], shows:
"About 5% of both crews indicated that they could not work during boutsof sea-sickness, whilst a further 50% had some difficulty in working on theseoccassions."
The remainder of this section describes the motion sickness symptomatology severity(MSSS) scale of Wiker et al., 1979 [171], and the illness rating (IR) scale of Lawther andGriffin, 1986 and 1988 [96, 98]. Also, the possibility of a proportional relationship betweenthe incidence of motion sickness (i.e. percent vomiting), symptom severity and perfor-mance is discussed by examining the relationship between self-rated IR values and observedvomiting incidence.
7.1 Motion Sickness Symptornatology Severity (MSSS)
A series of reports (Wiker et al., 1979 [171]; Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1979 and 19,0[172, 174]; Woolaver and Peters, 1980 [180]; and, Wiker and Pepper, 1981 [173]) describejoint USCG/USN side-by-side seakeeping trials with a 95 foot (29 m) Coast Guard PatrolBoat, a 378 foot (115 m) Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter, and a 87 foot (27 m)experimental Navy SWATH vessel. The ships were instrumented to record motions, anda variety of shipboard events were monitored, including a fairly comprehensive battery oftests, questionnaires and observations to assess the incidence and effects of motion sicknesssymptoms.
The Motion Sickness Symptomatology Severity scale (MSSS) 1172), is based on a ques-tionnaire [173, 174] which identifies the presence and severity of motion sickness symptoms.Comparison of MSSS scores with coincident, objective observations [171], indicates thatthis is a reliable diagnostic tool for assessing the objective and subjective severity of mo-tion sickness symptoms. Also, the MSSS scale provides a better indication of the effects ofmotion sickness than considering only the time to first emesis (and/or cumulative vomitingincidence)
17
Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1980 [174]; and, Wiker anrd Pepper, 1981 [173]. describeextensive correlation studies which relate the MSSS scale to ship motions and task perfor-mance. In summary, "subjects who were exposed to the motion environment of the PatrolBoat as it steamed through sea state 3 conditions suffered severe motion sickness whichwas associated with physiological stress, slight deterioration in mood and small to moder-ate decrements in psychomotor task performance". Unfortunately (for the purposes of thecurrent author), motions on the larger High Endurance Cutter and on the experimentalSWATH ship were not sufficient to induce significant motion sickness symptoms. Thus.these trials verify the expected relationship between increasing severity of motion sicknesssymptoms and decreasing performance, but insufficient data are available to establish quan-titative links. Note that problems with task performance in large amplitude, low frequencymotions (as experienced by the small Patrol Boat) may indicate the presence of biodynamicproblems, rather than, or in addition to, motion sickness symptoms.
Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1980 [174], present an empirical equation for estimatingvalues of MSSS from vessel motions defined by spectral amplitude, frequency and magnitudeof accelerations, but this method suffers from the same major problems as noted earlierfor the MS! and VI methods (i.e. habituation not modeled and link to performance notestablished), and the additional problem that exposure duration is not considered. Onerecommendation of this paper [174] is to continue using the MSI method (see Section -4.1)for assessing motion sickness.
Note, reference [174] observes that decrements in task performance were attributedprimarily to reductions in the quantity of work: not quality. Further, reference [174] suggeststhat those tasks which require sustained periods of performance (e.g. complex counting.navigational plotting), suffered the most performance degradation. and those tasks whichrequire short period., of effort and which were less complex suffered least.
7.2 Drowsiness, Lethargy and Fatigue
Most )apers describing motion sickness symptoms [e.g. 16, 70. 120, 122, 127, 172] are carefulto identify drowsiness and lethargy (or appropriate synonyms) as separate and differentsymptoms and either explicitly, or by omission, indicate that fatigue is not a symptom. Thisis consistent with the definition of fatigue as "weariness after exertion . and the distinctionis more than simply pedantic, as discussed in Section 10.2 of this review; however, regardlessof how fatigue is produced, the combined effects of fatigue and motion sickness are wors,,than either alone [39. 40]. This may be especially important to naval operations in relativelyharsh conditions, especially if further compounded by cold weather [14] (e.g. winter in thenorthern North Atlantic).
7.3 Illness Rating (IR)
Lawther and Griffin, 1986, 1987 and 1988 [96, 97. 99, 98], define a subjective "illnessrating" (IR) derived from their survey questionnaire and correlated with the VI methoddose and vertical accelerations in [97] and [99]. IR is defined as the following weighted-sumof subjective observations, solicited from ferry passengers at the end of passage.
-The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1978
i I l l 18
IR = N1 + 2N 2 + 3N 3N
where N, is for the number of people who felt "slightly unwell", N 2 is for "quite ill", A 3 isfor "absolutely dreadful", and N is the total number of responses (No is for those who felt"all right"). The validity of this rating scale is discussed in Lawther and Griffin, 1986 [96].
The next section discusses the possible existence *.f useful relationships between IR.vomiting incidence and performance.
7.4 Symptom Severity vs. Sickness Incidence vs. Performance
The current author examines the relationship between Lawther and Griffin's [963 IR andobserved vomiting inciderce in Figure 8, on which the following relationship between IRand vomiting incidence is plotted (straight-line).
IR = 0 .030 VIobs + 0.20
where IR is the subjective illness rating and V!o06 is the observed incidence of motionsickness (not the VI method's estimate).
The positive value for IR with V1ob, = 0 is consistent with observations cited earlierthat motion sickness effects are observed with little, or no, actual emesis: however, therelationship between particular values of IR and performance cannot be quantified.
Note that the current author's relationship between IR and VI differs from curvessuggested by Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97], and by Benson, 1988 [16]. In the first case,Lawther and Griffin [97] propose the curve IR = 0.05 VIoba as a rough estimate only. andso any differences are not especially important; however, the IR = 0.045\V1, 6 , + 0.1 curve-fitproposed by Benson, 1988 [16], shows the same trends as the current author's, but h:,significantly different slope and offset. The differences between the current author's curve-fit and that of Benson [161 cannot be explained, but both are good fits of the data on whichthey are based. The current author's data are those published in Table 2 of Lawther andGriffin, 1986 [96]. and represent exposure durations of 3 and 4 hours. The data used byBenson [16] are shown graphically in Figures 4 and 16 of Lawther and Griffin, 1987 [97], andrepresent durations from 2 through 6 hours. Unfortunately, these data are not published intabular form.
Regardless of which straight-line curve-fit is the "best", the fact that this simple re-lationship exists provides some useful information. If one can assume that a predictablerelationship exists between illness rating and performance degradation, then it is reason-able to suggest that the incidence of motion sickness (i.e. percent sick) is similarly relatedto performance. Since IR is a measure of severity of motion sickness symptoms, it maybe useful to consider the more concise MSSS scale described earlier as a potential methodfor future work on examining the relationship between severity of symptoms and perfor-mance. More detailed analysis of the MSSS/performance correlation studies described inSection 7.1 may provide insight on the relationship between subjective ratings 6 well-beingand performance, and may suggest areas of primary concern for future experimentation.
19
Note that the presence of a threshold value of IR below which vomiting incidencedoes not occur (see Figure 8), and the observation that a high proportion of the navalcommunity "never get sick" (see Section 8.4), suggest the possibility that some proportionof the habituated naval population may spend significant time in conditions which do notproduce major symptoms of motion sickness, but which do degrade performance. Thisindicates that it is important to determine whether habituation quantified as a reduction inthe incidence of vomiting implies a proportional reduction in the severity of motion sicknesssymptoms, especially drowsiness (also, see Section 10.2 on motion-induced fatigue).
8 Other Topics
8.1 Subjective Motion (SM)
Lloyd and Andrew, 1977 [102], define a method for calculating the subjective magnitude(SM) of vertical motions on warships, and its use is demonstrated in Andrew and Lloyd.1981 [5]. This SM method for warships is adapted from experimental work by Shoenberger.1975 [1561, on subjective response to low frequency vibration.
Experiments on subjective response to motion were important in the development ofISO 2631/1 for evaluating WBV effects at frequencies above 1.0 Hz, and they are an impor-tant aspect of ride quality, discussed below. Shoenberger, 1975 [156], provides the meansto extend these vibration criteria to the low frequency regime: however, it is importantto note that SM is not a measure of motion sickness and its associated symptoms, nor ofperformance [135]. Part II of this document cites a large number of documents concernedwith subjective motion and subjective magnitude.
8.2 Ride Quality
As discussed above for subjective motion, most work on "ride quality" and "ride comfort"is concerned with relatively high frequency motions, considered in Part II of this paper:however, some methods consider low frequencies as well.
Payne, 1976 [132], Stark, 1980 and 1982 [162, 163], Allen and Farris, 1986 [43]. con-sider a "composite" approach to assessing ride quality for low frequencies (i.e. motionsickness) and high frequencies (i.e. biodynamic problems). These papers provide an inter-esting method of blending the ISO 2631/3 and ISO 2631/1 standards; however, the currentauthor urges caution when applying this composite method to the "long-term exposure"naval environment. The time dependence of motion sickness is very different from that forbiodynamic problems (i.e. for sickness, long-term exposure is beneficial; for biodynamicproblems, long-term exposure is detrimental). Since the general operating procedures formost advanced naval vehicles (ANV) involve relatively short duration of exposure to mo-tions (i.e. near-shore operations from a harbour facility), it may be appropriate to usethese methods for ANV (e.g. [43])4, but this does not imply that this method is suitablefor open-ocean operations with frigates and destroyers.
4 Also. note that habituation can be gained from relatively brief exposures repeated on a daily basis.
20
8.3 Drug Therapy
Drug therapy for motion sickness is used for a variety of reasons, including: to reduce theincidence of motion sickness; to increase the rate of acquiring habituation; and, to mitigatethe effects of motion sickness symptoms. The primarily concern here regarding drug therapyis to locate papers useful for modeling habituation (see Section 6), and to cite the followingintroductory and review papers [51, 121, 122, 131]; otherwise, this subject is only consideredas follows.
In general, most aspects of modeling motion sickness considered in this paper assume (ifonly by omission) that drugs are not used, or that the population being observed includes anappropriate (but unquantified) proportion of "drugged" participants. A cursory overviewof the literature shows that about 12 % of the typical naval community takes medicationto prevent or treat motion sickness (8 and 14 % on two RN frigates [134], 12% on a USCGcutter [6]). As long as the proportion of "drugged" participants and the efficacy of anti-motion sickness drugs remain relatively constant, the effects of drug-use are not important;however, if either of these two aspects of drug use in the naval community should changesignificantly, then many (if not most) of the methods and data cited in Part I of this papermay become completely irrelevant.
8.4 Susceptibility
The variation of susceptibility to motion sickness between individuals is used to "screen"potential candidates for work in sickness-inducing environments, especially space flight.This aspect of susceptibility is not considered here, except to cite the following referencesrelated to this topic: [40, 84, 100, 155]. Note that if current trends of reducing crew sizesare continued in the future, the susceptibility of individuals may assume greater importancefor the naval community.
The variation of susceptibility of different populations to motion sickness is important.Thomas, Guignard and Willems, 1983 [165], speculate that "there may be two populationsof susceptible people who develop motion sickness at different rates, or there may be twounderlying rate processes within people". Similarly, the statistical modeling work citedin Section 5 assumes that part of the total population is susceptible to being sick after arelatively short exposure to motion, and the remaining persons are not (the time-dependenceof their susceptibility is not quantified).
ISO 2631/3 states, "for the normal travelling public, however, it appears that a smallpercentage of probably about 5% never adapt to motion below 0.63 Hz". The distributionof high susceptibility to motion sickness in the naval community is not clear. Questionnaireresponses indicate from 4 to 13% percent of the naval community "always get sick" in"rough" conditions [24, 134]. This is surprisingly high; however, the current author suspectsthat more than 5% of the normal travelling public would be sick in conditions desc-ibedas "rough" by naval standards. The percent of naval personnel who "never get sick" issignificantly large, at approximately 32 % (arithmetic mean of figures cited in [5, 24, and134]). Thus, when methods for modeling either the incidence or effects of motion sicknesson naval personnel are devised, the empirical aspects of the models must be assessed usingdata representative of the naval community.
21
Very high incidences of vomiting (i.e. up to 100%) are experienced in extreme con-ditions such as totally enclosed lifeboats (see Landolt and Monaco, 1989 [92]); however,these conditions are not representative of the naval environment, and so are not consideredfurther in this review.
8.5 Simulator Sickness
Simulator sickness is not considered in this review, except to cite the following references:[1, 45, 75, 104].
8.6 Space Sickness
Space sickness is not considered in this review, except to cite Jeffrey et al., 1988 [88], asan overview of the observed incidence of space sickness, and Oman et al., 1986 [130], andMegighan, 1980 [118] for overviews of space sickness etiology and prediction methods. Also.as noted earlier in Section 6, most (if not all) data on motion sickness in space is notapplicable to the marine environment.
PART II: BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS
9 Overview
The bulk of literature on biodynamic problems is associated with "whole-body vibration"(WBV) at frequencies higher than 1 Hz. This is the traditional division between biodynamicand motion sickness problems; however, significant biodynamic problems are encounteredin the naval environment at freruencies below 1 Hz. The current author uses the phrase"whole-body motion" (WBM) to describe two categories of biodynamic problems; motion-induced interruptions (MII) and long-term, motion-induced fatigue (MIF). After discussingthese WBM problems, the review describes conditions in which W13V problems are encoun-tered at relatively low frequency and discusses using the ISO WBV standard for evaluatingperformance. The remainder of the review provides brief descriptions and cites relevantliterature on the following WBV topics: standards and papers of direct relevance; manualcontrol problems; vision problems; subjective motion; ride comfort and ride qua':ty: lowfrequency motions; and, complex motions. Where appropriate, papers of special iuterest tothe naval community are cited separately.
This literature review does not consider noise, although some of the standards citedlater consider both noise and vibrations. Similarly, this review does not consider localvibrations due to rotating machinery, but rrany of the references cited below are of direct
relevance.
22
10 Whole-Body Motion (WBM)
10.1 Motion-Induced Interruptions (MII)
A motion-induced interruption (MII) occurs when local motions cause a person to losebalance or slide, and so interrupt any task being performed. The MII concept was in-troduced by Applebee, McNamara and Baitis, 1980 [185], and is more fully described byBaitis, Woolaver and Beck, 1983 [188], and Baitis, Applebee and McNamara, 1984 [186].A frequency-domain method for estimating the incidence of M1I's, called the lateral forceestimator (LFE) [186, 188] is of interest, since it greatly reduces the amount of computa-tion compared with the time-domain approach. The LFE combines earth-referenced lateralacceleration with ship-referenced lateral acceleration to provide an estimate of lateral forcesat any particular location in or on the ship. Since the value of the LFE can be related tothe incidence of MII's caused by lateral forces [188, 186], the LFE provides a good estimateof MII's in conditions where vertical accelerations are small.
Recent work by Graham, 1989 [211], defines a generalized lateral force estimator(GLFE) which includes vertical forces, and so greatly expands the conditions under whichthe incidence of MIT's can be assessed using frequency-drýmain techniques.
These methods for estimating the incidence of MII's [186, 188, 211] are derived tomodel the forces acting on a standing huiiman. Thus, they provide a means to determinewhen motions will interfere with appropriate actions (e.g. transiting a helicopter landingdeck, or performing systeri maintenance with light, hand-tools). Human activities requir-ing interaction between humans and heavy, mobile equipment (e.g. UNREP, rearming) canprobably be modeled by extensions to the current M11 theory, but such methods are notyet de-eioped. Also, wind effects are not considered, and so M11 incidence will be under-estimated in the presence of high winds. Lloyd and Hanson, 1985 [239], discuss the effectsof wind on human activities in helicopter operations, and provide empirical data on windlimits for human operations on the flight deck (in the absence of motion).
10.2 Motion-Induced Fatigue (MIF)
As mentioned in the discussion on motion sickness, fatigue is best considered as a biody-namic problem, and should not be confused with the motion sickness symptoms of drowsi-ness and lethargy.
Warhurst and Cerasani, 1969 [282], observe "sleep disturbance was often reported as animportant negative result of heavy roll", and that "in general, 'one hand for the ship and onehand for self' was the rule". These observations suggest a link exists between low-frequency,large-amplitude motions and both ý.,owsiness (need for sleep) and fatigue (weariness afterexertion). Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1980 12841, describe at-sea observations by Sapovand Kulesov, 1975 [267], which show roll motions are the predominant contributor to fatigue(i.e. from holding on and bracing against whole-body displacement).
Baitis, Woolaver and Beck, 1983 [188], evaluate the potential for rudder roll stabiliz-ers to improve human performance by examining motion-induced fatigue (MIF), motionsickness incidence (MSI), and MIl's for shipboard helicopter maintenance tasks, as follows.
23
"In seas forward of the beam, maintenance task performance is degraded pri-marily by MSI and MIF. Thus, roll stabilization in bow seas reduces one ofthe two factors degrading maintenance - fatigue. In seas aft of the beam, taskperformance is degraded primarily by fatigue and in the operational sector ex-tending roughly from 15 degrees aft of the beam to 35 degrees aft of the beamby the occurrence of hazardoius MII's."
The current author notes that the preceeding observations on the roll-dependence offatigue and the variation in relative importance of MSI, MIF and MII's with changingdirection between the ship and seas are likely platform-dependent; however, it is clear thatmotion-induced fatigue is an important biodynamic problem.
Baitis. Wos!avc: and Beck, 1383 r, •Q1 dicusý the p,-ibiliv of assessing trends in MIFfrom the incidence of MII's, as estimated by the LFE method described earlier. Similarly,Graham has suggested' that it should be possible to correlate long-term fatigue with theGLFE (2111. The current author notes that the constraints on LFE as an indicator of MII'sshould also constrain its use as an indicator of MIF (i.e. LFE is valid where vertical andlongitudinal forces are not significant). Also, the current author notes it may be possible toestimate MIF by combining MII theory with a more explicit model of human physiologicalresponse (e.g. Oman, 1986 [258], for horizontal displacement), and so estimate fatigue bycalculating work-done by the muscles to preserve relative position (i.e. holding-on, bracingagainst motion, and "moving-with" the ship).
Further discussion in [174] on observations by Sapov and Kuleshov, 1975 [267], notesthat the primary effect of motion-induced fatigue on mental and "professional" performanceis a reduction in the quality of work, not quantity or rate of completion. This is impor-tant to the naval community as it implies a higher incidence of mistakes, and that thesemistakes may not be noticed. It is likely that reduced quality of work due to fatigue andreduced quantity of output due to motion sickness symptoms (and/or WBV problems, seeSection 7.1) will combine in some circumstances to significantly degrade performance.
11 Whole-Body Vibration, WBV
WBV problems associated with manual control and vision are traditionally considered forfrequencies above 1 Hz, but significant WBV problems are experienced at frequencies con-siderably lower than this in the naval environment, especially for advanced naval vehicles(ANV). For example, Wiker, Pepper and McCauley, 1980 [284] describe work on simulatedSES motions [35, 257, 229], which shows significant manual control problems for frequenciesfrom 0.2 to 2.0 Hz and with RMS vertical accelerations from 0.5 to 1.0 g (also, see [241]).This zone of WBV problems is shown in Figure 9, labelled as MOTOR TASKS (SES), alongwith a similar zone from Griffin, 1975 [213], in which vision problems are encountered athigher frequencies in aircraft, labelled VISION (A/C). Also shown in this figure is the ISO2631/1 "fatigue-decreased proficiency" boundary, FDPB, for a 2 hour exposure (describedin the next section). Note that the dashed portion of the ISO 2631/1 boundary below 1 Hzis an extrapolation by the current author. The validity of extrapolating the ISO boundary
'Graham, R.: Private Communication
24
to lower frequencies is not assessed by the current author; however, much of the literaturecited in the following section on ISO 2631/1 and later in Section 11.7 considers this question.
Figure 9 illustrates two points which should be considered when reading the followingreview of WBV literature:
1. significant WBV problems are encountered at frequencies below 1 Hz;
2. the ISO boundary is conservative for the SES motor task problems (and adequatebut unsubstantiated below 1 Hz), but the same boundary is optimistic for the aircraftvision problems.
The first point suggests that the ship designer or operational analyst should investigatethe possibility of WBV manual control problems for all vessels which may encounter highS.... vat e',cn relatively low frequencies. The second point skggestE tht it r•crhtnot be possible to select a single ISO 2631/1 boundary as a criterion for evaluating differentaspects of human performance, especially for high frequency motions (e.g. ANV sprint).
11.1 Standards
The accepted international standard on biodynamic problems associated with whole-bodyvibration (WBV) is the ISO standard 2631/1 entitled "Evaluation of Human Exposureto Whole-Body Vibration - Part 1: General Requirements" (225]. The ISO 2631/1 de-fines limits of exposure to vertical and horizontal vibrations as functions of the frequencyand amplitude of accelerations, for three conditions: "reduced comfort", "fatigue-decreasedproficiency", and "exposure limit (health or safely)". The exposure limits are expressedin tabular and graphical form as boundaries, following the same methodology as for theISO 2631/3 motion sickness standard, discussed earlier (ISO 2631/1 forms the basis for ISO2631/3).
In addition to defining limits for human exposure to WBV, ISO 2631/1 describesmethods for reducing broad-band and complex motions to equivalent narrow-band, single-direction motions. These ISO methods are discussed and used in most of the literaturecited in later sections on manual control, vision, subjective motion, and ride quality.
Note that "fatigue" as used in ISO 2631/1 is not the same as described previously forlow-frequency, large-amplitude motions. ISO 2631/1 describes the FDP1R as fol'uws.
"The boundary specifies a limit beyond which exposure to vibration can beregarded as carrying a significant risk of impaired working efficiency in manykinds of tasks, particularly those in which time-dependent effects ("fatigue") areknown to worsen performance as, for example, in vehicle driving."
Thus, the ISO definition of fatigue is different from "weariness after exertion", as usedin this review to describe motion-induced fatigue. The apparent ISO usage of "fatigue"represents the combined effects of a variety of symptoms including; motion-induced fatigue(probably not much), mental-fatigue, drowsiness and reduced concentration. In the senseof this review, fatigue associated with "vehicle driving" would be a consequence of effortexpended on steering, more than from exposure to vibration.
25
Other standards and guidelines include: the ISO 6897 standard [227] for evaluatinghuman response to low frequency horizontal motion; the British Standards Institution BS6841 for evaluating human exposure to whole-body vibration [191]; the American NationalStandards Institute ANSI S3.18-1979 [184]; the Society of Naval Architects and MarineEngineers, SNAME (276];, and, military standards and specifications [279, 280].
ANSI S3.18-1979 [184] is essentially tbh same as ISO 2631/1, except it provides explicitfrequency-weighting curves.
A number of papers with direct linkage to the ISO 2631/1 standard are cited below.Some substantiate existing ISO practice and others observe differences between observedbehaviour and ISO 2631/1 recommendations.
References: [181, 272, 281, 247, 193, 199, 272, 255, 201, 264, 198, 217, 215]
British Standards Institute, BS 6841
The British Standards Institute BS 6841 [191] describes an approach for evaluating exposureto whole-body vibration which is different from ISO 2631/1 and related standards. Indeed,BS 6841 incorporates many of the criticisms of ISO 2631/1 described in documents citedabove. The ISO concept of "fatigue-decreased proficiency" is not used in BS 6841, nor isthe ISO assumption of direct proportionality between limits for comfort, proficiency andhealth (i.e. safety). BS 6841 explicitly considers health, hand control, vision, discomfort,motion perception, and motion sickness as separate problems. BS 6841 suggests quantitativelimits for each type of problem, and describes different procedures for estimating thesequantities. The BS 6841 limits and methods are not evaluated here (except as discussed inSection 3.2 for motion sickness); however, the current author suggests that this approachseems reasonable.
Habituation
The presence or absence of habituation due to long durations of exposure to WBV is notclear. Seidel et al., 1980 [268], note that some habituation is observed in repeated exposuresto conditions near the ISO 2631/1 fatigue decreased-proficiency boundaries, FDPB, but pro-longed exposure (i.e. more typical of naval environment) demonstrates greater performancedecrements with increasing dose. Clarke, 1979 [193], observes that the time-dependencyexhibited in the ISO boundaries (i.e. the longer the worse) does not hold for exposures upto 2.5 hrs. Clcvenson, 1978 [194], indicates that habituation does occur, especially whenconsidering ride comfort (ISO considers comfort is directly proportional to FDPB).
11.2 Manual Control
Manual control describes a variety of hand-eye and fine motor skill tasks, and, since it di-rectly affects performance, it is of particular interest to the current review; however, mostof the work is for frequencies above those experienced in the typical naval environment.Traditionally, WBV manual control problems are associated with frequencies above 1 Hz;however, significant manual control problems have been observed in the ANV naval envi-ronment at relatively low frequencies [230, 241, 284].
26
ISO 2631/3 on motion sickness (0.1 < f < 0.63 Hz) [226] comments on low-frequency
manual control problems as follows.
"In the almost complete lack of data on this topic, a RMS value of 1.75 m/s 2 ,that is a peak value of 0.25 g6 , largely independent of frequency, is suggested asthe approximate level at which disturbance may occur to such tasks as writingand fine manual control."
British Standards Institution BS 6841 [191] defines frequency-weighting curves andprocedures for evaluating manual control problems, for frequencies from approximately 0.1to over 100 Hz. BS 6841 comments on quantitative limits (ba.sed on frequency-weightedaccelerations) as follows.
"For precise infcrn1 4tion, detailed investigation will be necessary. However, itmay often be found that where hand (or finger) control is required to an accuracyof within 5 mm r.m.s. or 2.5 N r.m.s. the weighted acceleration magnitude in anyaxis should not exceed 0.5 m-s- 2r.m.s. If less accuracy is required the weightedvalues could be increased in linear proportion."
Irwin and Goto, 1984 [224], describe experiments on the effects of low-frequency hori-zontal motions (i.e. surge, sway and yaw) on manual dexterity tasks. The results are com-pared with the ISO 6897 standard [227] for evaluating human response to low-frequency,horizontal motions (0.063 to 1 Hz) in "fixed" structures (i.e. buildings and off-shore rigs.)In summary: "the results of the manual dexterity tasks ... indicate that the curve shapeand magnitudes in ISO 6897 are in good agreement with the laboratory investigation". Thiswork by Irwin and Goto, and the ISO 6897 standard are not evaluated in any more detail inthis review; however, it is important to observe that they illustrate that significant manualcontrol problems can be encountered in the absence of vertical motions.
Lewis and Griffin, 1978 [234], provides a review on continuous manual control, especiallyhand-eye tracking tasks.
References: [190, 191, 193, 195, 196, 208, 209, 219, 221, 224, 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 241,244, 245, 246, 268, 269, 282, 284]
Naval Applications: [190, 195, 196, 230, 241, 246, 282, 284]
11.3 Vision
Problems with reading printed and displayed information are considered separately fromthe hand-eye manual control problems noted above. Reviews on this subject are providedby Collins, 1973 [197]; and, Griffin and Lewis, 1978 [216].
British Standards Institution BS 6841 [191] provides a frequency-weighting curve forassessing the effects of vibration on vision, and comments on quantitative limits as follows.
6 Note that this applies only for sinusoidal motion. In the naval environment, the relationship between
RMS and peak can be derived using the Rayleigh distribution.
27
"Precise guidance will require detailed investigation. However, it may oftenbe found that where it is necessary to resolve detail which subtends less than2 minutes of arc at the eye, the weighted acceleration magnitude should notexceed 0.5 m. s- 2r.m.s. For every increase by a factor of V2 in the size of thedetail which is to be resolved the vibration magnitude could be doubled."
References: [191, 197, 213, 216, 230, 237, 243, 248, 249, 250, 257]
11.4 Repeated Shock
Exposure to repeated (mechanical) shock is not truly a vibration problem, but it is related,and it is encounteied in so-.-- naval environments, especially fast patrol boats. Allen.1982 [182], and the British Standards Institution BS 6841, 1987 [191], provide quantitativeguidance for evaluating the effects of exposure to repeated shock on health and comfort.Also, many of the references cited later for ride quality consider exposure to repeated shock.
11.5 Subjective Magnitude
Two experimental procedures are commonly used in this work: subjective magnitude es-timation and intensicy matching. In the first procedure, subjects attempt to estimate theproportional magnitude of a given motion with respect to a reference acceleration and fre-quency. In the second procedure, subjects attempt to determine the level of acceleration ata particular frequency which matches a reference acceleration and frequency. These experi-ment results provide an empirical basis for much of the ISO 2631/1 standard, and they areused extensively in work on ride quality, discussed later; however, subjective magnitude isnot related to task performance.
References: [183, 191, 192, 201, 205, 207, 214, 222, 238, 239, 253, 255, 264, 270, 271, 272,285, 286]
Naval Applications: [183, 192, 238, 239]
11.6 Ride Quality and Ride Comfort
The terms ride quality and ride comfort describe both a concept for expressing passengersatisfaction and a methodology for modeling that satisfaction, generally based closely on ISO2631/1. As for subjective magnitude, ride quality is not related to performance. Oborne,1976 and 1977 [251, 252], provides a review of early work on ride quality, and Stark, 1982[278], and Farris, 1986 [204], provide useful overviews of more recent applications in themarine environment, especially for ANV. Note that these and many other pap-ers on ridequality use the same time-basis for evaluating both motion sickness and passenger comfort.As discussed earlier in Section 8.2 of this review, this approach is not appropriate for thetypical naval environment.
Military specification MIL-F-9490 (279] defines limits on vertical and lateral accelera-tions using a ride discomfort index, which is calculated using frequency-dependent weightingfactors.
28
British Standards Institution BS 6841 [191] defines relative comfort in terms of (ap-proximate) ranges for frequency-weighted RMS acceleration, calculated from frequency-weighting curves which are defined for variations in body orientation and different axes ofvibration.
References: [182, 191, 193, 194, 198, 199, 204, 206, 210, 215, 217, 218, 220, 223, 228, 231,232, 240, 252, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 274, 275, 277, 278, 279]
Na%'al Applications: [182, 192, 204, 223, 240, 263, 277, 278]
11.7 Low Frequency Considerations
British Standards Institution BS 6841 [191] defines explicit frequency-weighting curves forevaluating WBV problems (health, hand control, vision, and discomfort) for frequenciesfrom approximately 0.1 to 100 Hz.
As mentioned earlier, ISO 2631/3 [226] on motion sickness (0.1 < f < 0.63 Hz) suggeststhat disturbances in manual control tasks will occur for RMS vertical accelerations aboveapproximately 1.75 m/s', largely independent of frequency; however, very little data areavailable on this matter. Irwin and Goto, 1984 [224] compare laboratory experiments onmanual contiol with the ISO 6897 standard [227] for low-frequency, horizontal motions. Theresults tend to verify the ISO 6897 low-frequency guidelines (0.063 < f < 1.0 Hz), whichare, essentially, a low-frequency extension of the horizontal motion guidelines in ISO 2631/1(1.0 < f < 80 Hz).
The documents cited below are of interest for extending existing WBV methods andcriteria to low-frequency, vertical motions. Most of these works are concerned with subjec-tive magnitude, ride quality and ISO 2631/1 in the frequency range from 0.5 to 1.0 Hz, andall have been cited in previous sections.
References: [183, 191, 192, 198, 203, 204, 215, 223, 224, 239, 238, 240, 245, 246, 255, 263,270, 277, 278, 279, 282, 284, 285, 286]
Naval Applications: [183, 192, 198, 204, 215, 223, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 263, 277, 278,279, 282, 284J
11.8 Complex Motions
In general, the documents cited here describe experimental results on manual control, vision.subjective magnitude and/or ride quality for exposure to motions which are not narrow-banded or single-frequency. These documents are of particular interest when examiningthe ISO 2631/1 procedures for reducing broad-band and complex motions to equivalent,narrow-band motion. All documents shown below have been cited in previous sections.
References: [189, 191, 194, 198, 199, 206, 214, 218, 222, 235, 241, 247, 262, 26-1. 271, 272.273, 285]
29
PART III: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
12 Discussion: Evaluating Human Performance
In order to evaluate human performance in the naval environment, two things are required:the first is a concise description of the environment itself, in terms of the motions experi-enced, and the second is a methodology, including criteria, for evaluating the effects of thesemotions on human performance. For any particular type of vessel, the motions experiencedare the product of ocean environment, vessel characteristics and operating procedures. Themethods for defining the ocean environment (e.g. [12]) and for predicting motions from ves-sel characteristics and operating procedures (e.g. [53, 54, 55, 154]) aie available today andprovide sufficient accuracy for the present purposes. The general concepts of performancedegradation and operability assessment are well established (e.g. [11, 29, 30, 71, 103, 128,150, 239]); however, the methodology for quantitative assessment of human performance isnot yet available.
12.1 Methodology
From the preceeding review, it is apparent that a methodology for assessing motion effectson human performance in the naval environment should consider at least four differentphenomena.
1. motion sickness: low-frequency, short- and long-term exposure (habituation)
2. motion-induced interruption, MuI: low-frequency, large-amplitude, short-term event;
3. motion-induced fatigue, MIF: low-frequency, large-amplitude, long-term exposure;and,
4. whole-body vibration, WBV: medium/high-frequency, tolerable exposure determinedby severity of motion.
It is important to note that three of these phenomena are "low-frequency", which allnaval vessels can expect to experience much, if not most, of the time. Also, the differingnatures of these four phenomena with respect to the effects of exposure duration are im-portant. Only motion sickness exhibits beneficial effects with increasing exposure duration(i.e. habituation); all others exhibit increasing degradation of performance with increasingexposure duration.
The human participation in any activity should be assessed in terms of the appropri-ate time scale. For example, evaluating a long-term activity such as ocean-transit sonarsurveillance should include assessing motion sickness and motion-induced fatigue. Alter-nately, evaluating human participation in a short-term event, such as crossing a flight deckto grasp a helicopter haul-down cable and then inserting it into the haul-down mechanism.may be confined to an assessment of MlI's only [9, 1861. Tasks with intermediate-termdurations should be evalauted as appropriate. For example, an analysis of helicopter main-tenance requiring 10 to 12 hours should consider motion sickness, fatigue and Mll's [9].
30
In many naval scenarios, WBV problems will not occur, or may be of relatively low sig-nificance; however, it is important to explicitly consider the possibility of WBV problems.For example, simultaneous MII and manual control problems may occur, but their relativeimportance will depend on the activity being evaluated.
It is also important to note how the time scale of operating procedures can affect human
performance. For example, consider sonar surveillance with sprint and drift tactics [124] (i.e.move at high speed between locations at which the vessel drifts and listens). The changingmotion environment may have a significant effect on the incidence of motion sickness (i.e. isit possible to habituate to alternating motion environments ?), and the high-speed sprintmay produce significant, short-duration WBV problems.
12.2 Criteria
Since many aspects of human performance cannot be quantified in terms directly related tooperability, two kinds of quantitative seakeeping criteria must be considered:
1. absolute performance criteria; and,
2. relative performance criteria.
It is necessary to provide absolute performance criteria when the weak-link in an activ-ity involving human participation is not obvious, or when human and non-human system
components are competing (i.e. which is more cost-effective, or which is safer?).
It is sufficient to provide relative performance criteria when the human participation inan activity is necessary. For example, consider sonar operations. It is not posoible now, orin the forseeable future, to remove the human from the loop, and so criteria W1,.ch providean accurate, relative measure of human performance are sufficient. The major purposes forsuch criteria are to evaluate the best, worst and/or variation of relative performance withchanging location, platform type and/or operating practice. Thus, the relative performancecriteria must be platform-independent (i.e. based on the correct motion and response events)and must be related to performance. but operability does not have to be quantified.
An example of the case where human participation is not necessary and absolute per-formance criteria are required is the human participation in a haul-down assisted helicopterlanding. An evaluation of this activity should consider a variety of events, including:
" motion of the flight deck (i.e. MlI assessment, can the human walk across the flightdeck?);
" relative wind (i.e. can the helicopter approach the flight deck and hold position, willthe human be blown off the flight deck?);
" relative motion between the helicopter and flight deck (i.e. can any system, human ornot, grasp the haul-down cable? Once attached, can the haul-down winch and cablewithstand the forces generated by relative motion?);
31
For any particular platform type, onboard location and operating procedure. someof these events may be relatively insignificant and other events not mentioned may bevery significant; however, since all systems (humans included) involved in this activityexperience the same motions, absolute performance criteria must be used. Fortunately, theM11 evaluation which is appropriate for the human participation in this activity is relativelyeasy to express as an absolute performance criterion, at least in the same statistical time-or event-based sense as for the other systems involved. For example, a predicted value of'n' human MlI's per hour compares quantitatively with 'm' exceedences per hour of somevertical velocity or wind criterion. A finite value of 'n' MlI's per hour when no other systems
exhibit degradation indicates the human should be replaced, or the task modified. A smallvalue of 'n' MlI's per hour together with a finite value of 'm' exceedences ol cable yieldstrength indicates the human is not the weak link.
13 Recommendations
1. When evaluating human performance:
"* consider motion sickness, motion-induced interruptions (MIT), motion-inducedfatigue (MIF), and whole-body vibration (WBV) as separate problems: do notarbitrarily discount the possibility of encountering all four problems on any" plat-form; and,
"* classify activities involving human participation as follows,
- identify all systems involved and describe how they interact,
- quantify the duration of activities and determine which events should bemodeled to assess performance,
- determine if human participation is essential (with respect to reasonablealternatives).
2. Develop a method to quantify the process of habituation and its effects on the inci-dence of motion sickness.
3. Integrate the motion sickness habituation model with the MSI method (McCauleyet al., 1976 [109]).
4. Develop a methodology for "tracking" the incidence of motion sickness in a changingenvironment (see Newman, 1976 [12-1]).
5. Investigate frequency-domain methods for predicting motion sickness incidence inbroad-band motions (following [37, 80, 105]).
6. Modify MiI frequency-domain methods to model activities involving interaction be-tween humans and heavy, mobile equipment.
7. Investigate the possibility of quantifying MI" by estimating the work done to remainin position.
8. Compare existing data on naval biodvnamic problems with ISO 2631/1 [2251 and BS6841 [191] to determine if relative trends are consistnit.
32
9. Devise experiments and conduct at-sea observations to:
(a) further test the assumption that motion sickness incidence can be predicted fromvertical motions alone (for all reasonable naval environments):
(b) expand existing data bases on motion sickness incidence and habituation in con-
trolled and random broad-band motions;
(c) assess the relationship between vomiting incidence, subjective illrness and perfor-mance;
(d) assess whether habituation as quantified by a reduction in incioence of vomitingimplies a similar reduction in the severity of other symptoms;
(e) validate the GLFE method [211] for estimating the incidence of MlI's in thepresence of significaiit vertical acceleration;
(f) investigate the relationship between low-frequency, large-amplitude motions andMIF; and,
(g) assess possible correlation between the GLFE method [211] and motion-inducedfatigue.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank all staff of the many libraries involved in gathering the literaturecited in this review, and special thanks are conveved to Bernice Mackey and Iris Ouelletteat the DREA library, and to the periodicals staff at Dalhousie University's Kellogg HealthSciences Library.
33
10.0 ! I
8.0
6.3
5.0 - MOTION SICKNESS REGION
4.0 -
3.15 -
2.5 /-
2.0 /Cu/
-~1.6/
z 1.25 /0
30 min< 1.0 _
ErUJ-6J
U) S/ /Cr 2 h.5 /
.4 //
.315 //
.25 8 hTENTATIVE
.2
.16
1•25
.1 I I I I I
.1 .125 .16 .2 .25 .315 .4 .5 .63 .8 1.0FREQUENCY OR CENTRE FREQUENCYOF ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND (Hz)
Figure 1: ISO 2631/3 "Severe discomfort boundaries", vertical vibration.
34
1. 0zC
.- 4-n 0.9
•-•0.8
CC
uiO. 7
< LL
_1 0.5
U
0 1 2 3 4STANDARDIZED NORMAL
RANDOM VARIABLE, z
Figure 2: Cumulative Distribution Function, 'D(z), of the StandardizedNormal Random Variable z
100
CD
zF-
>1 IIn 10I
N I
z I \~
I\
0.01 0.10 1.00FREQUENCY, f (Hz)
Figure 3: Lawther and Griffin, 1987, Frequency-Weighting Defined by Line-SegmentApproximation of Normalized Vomiting vs Frequency Using ExperimentalData of McCauley et al., 1976.
35
100
FREQUENCY (HZ)A-~-&-0. 167
80 0-0 -0.250i o0-0.333
--) &- 0. 500Z *-.-0.600LLJ
60L)L
S20
0 2 4 6 8 10RMS VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s 2 )
Figure 4: Observed Vomiting Incidence vs Magnitude of Vertical Accelerationat Five Constant Frequencies, from McCauley et al., 1976.
cu 40 , ,. .
I FREQUENCY a (ms-2)E WEIGHTING - 0.54
0- - -1.09-30 0-0-2.18.
A--A =3.270• H-4.35k- "5.44
... .........
20
CD
N 10_J
Coz 0.1 1.0
FREQUENCY, f (Hz)
Figure 5: VI Method Frequency Weighting Curve (Dashed Line) and VI NormalizedVomiting vs Frequency, at Six Constant Magnitudes of Acceleration
36
100
80LUZz
LU-S60 • .-
40 /CDz- --- NON-LINEAR
b- -- LINEARS20 * * OBSERVED
0
0 100 150 200 250 300DOSE (ms- 1 . 5 )
Figure 6: Linear (K Factor) and Non-Linear Curve-Fits to
Observed Vomiting Incidence vs VI Method Dose
100
LU8OLU
z/
U /
260
z
40Z - VI METHOD
S-- MSI METHODSj o.OBSERVED2 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120DURATION OF EXPOSURE (min)
Figure 7: Vomiting Incidence vs Duration of Exposure, Comparison of
MSI and VI Methods with Experiments of McCauley et al., 1976,for RMS vertical acceleration of 0.333 (m/s 2 )
37
S1.6z
rr1.2U')U)
z1 00
< 0.4
<04
0 10 20 30 40OBSERVED VOMITING INCIDENCE (%)
Figure 8: Illness Rating vs Observed Vomiting Incidence,Using Data from Lawther and Griffin, 1986
U) MOTOR TASKS (SES)
Ei
UO 1.0 r
C1 0 .1 1 ...... I0'1 1.0 10.0 100.0
FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure 9: Zones of Significant WBV Problems with Motor Skills in Surface Effect Ship(SES) Motions and with Vision in Aircraft (A/C)
38
APPENDIX: Comparison of MSI and VI Methods
The MSI and VI methods, as described in Section 4, were implemented in a computerprogram and used to model the following experiments and observations (upon which themethods are based),
1. O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974 [126], and McCauley et al., 1976 [109], laboratoryexperiments with single-frequency vertical, sinusoidal motion, for exposures of ap-proxim,)tely 1 and 2 hours (50 experimental conditions), and
2. Lawther and Griffin, 1986 [96]: observations of at-sea behaviour of ferry passengersbased on response to questionnaires, for exposures of approximately 3 and 6 hours (22observations).
The results of this exercise are presented in the following three tables; one table foreach reference noted above. Each table defines the input, observed incidence of vomiting.and predicted incidence of vomiting from the two methods. Also, the last three columnsdefine additional information from the VI method.
The following notation is used in this appendix:
f frequency (Hz)
a RMS acceleration (g)
t duration of exposure (min)
MS observed incidence of motion sickness
MSI'76 MSI method motion sickness incidence (McCauley et al., 1976)
VI'87 VI method vomiting incidence (Lawther and Griffin, 1987)
a(rms) acceleration (ms- 2)
a* VI method frequency-weighted RMS acceleration (ms- 2 )
dose VI cumulative dose (ms- 5 )
Note that the frequency used in Table A.3 for the data of Lawther and Griffin, 1986[96], is assumed constant at 0.17 (Hz), based on the "dominant" frequency of a typicalacceleration power spectrum for this vessel presented in [96]. As discussed in the text,selecting a single frequency to represent the vessel's broad-band motion is not justified;however, since the same input is used for both MSI and VI methods, the results should bevalid for comparative purposes.
Each table sumarizes the average diffcrence and standard deviation between the ob-served and estimated incidence of motion sickness. The overall results are shown below.
MSI'76 VI'87
Average Difference (M,): 0.9 -3.7Standard Dcviation (7.): 6.1 8.0
39
Table A.1: Comparison of MSI and VI Methods withExperimental Data of O'Hanlon and McCauley, 1974
---------- VI'87f a t MS MSI'76 VI a(rms) a* dose
(Hz) (g) (min) (%) (M) (%) (ms2) (ms-2) (ms-1.5)
0.083 0.028 115 0.0 0.5 3.9 0.275 0.134 11.10.083 0.055 115 5.0 3.9 7.7 0.539 0.264 21.90.167 0.028 115 0.0 2.4 8.1 0.275 0.275 22.80.167 0.055 115 10.0 12.2 15.8 0.539 0.540 44.80.167 0.111 115 30.0 35.9 31.9 1.089 1.089 90.50.167 0.222 115 60.0 64.7 63.9 2.177 2.179 181.00.333 0.055 115 5.0 2.6 10.3 0.539 0.351 29.10.333 0.111 115 15.0 13.7 20.8 1.089 0.708 58.80.333 0.222 115 52.0 37.9 41.5 2.177 1.416 117.60.333 0.333 115 52.0 55.1 62.3 3.266 2.123 176.40.500 0.111 115 0.0 1.4 8.8 1.089 0.302 25.10.500 0.222 115 15.0 8.8 17.7 2.177 0.604 50.10.500 0.333 115 25.0 19.1 26.5 3.266 0.905 75.20.500 0.444 115 30.0 29.2 35.4 4.354 1.207 100.3
Average Difference (W): 0.9 -4.0Standard Deviation (.): 5.5 6.6
40
Table A.2: Comparison of MSI and VI Methods withExperimental Data of McCauley et al, 1976
-------- V1--- ----- -VI-87f a t MS MSI'76 VI a(rms) a* dose
(Hz) (g) (min) (%) () () (ms2) (ms-2) (ms-l.5)
0.167 0.111 55 15.0 27.3 22.1 1.089 1.089 62.60.167 0.222 55 55.0 58.1 44.2 2.177 2.179 125.10.200 0.234 55 69.0 57.8 46.6 2.295 2.296 131.9
0.250 0.111 55 24.0 18.6 22.1 1.089 1.089 62.60.250 0.111 65 28.0 20.5 24.0 1.089 1.089 68.0
0.250 0.222 55 54.0 47.2 44.2 2.177 2.179 125.10.250 0.222 65 56.0 49.5 48.0 2.177 2.179 136.00.250 0.333 65 58.0 67.0 72.0 3.266 3.268 204.10.333 0.222 55 15.0 29.3 28.7 2.177 1.416 81.30.333 0.222 65 27.0 31.6 31.2 2.177 1.416 88.4
0.333 0.333 65 44.0 49.5 46.8 3.266 2.123 132.60.417 0.444 65 33.0 42.0 39.3 4.354 1.781 111.2
0.500 0.222 65 5.0 5.7 13.3 2.177 0.604 37.70.500 0.333 55 10.0 12.4 18.4 3.266 0.905 52.0
0.600 0.444 65 4.0 8.3 14.1 4.354 0.639 39.90.083 0.027 115 0.0 0.4 3.8 0.265 0.129 10.70.083 0.055 115 5.0 3.9 7.7 0.539 0.264 21.90.167 0.027 115 0.0 2.2 7.8 0.265 0.265 22.0
0.167 0.055 115 10.0 12.2 15.8 0.539 0.540 44.80.167 0.111 115 30.0 35.9 31.9 1.089 1.089 90.50.167 0.222 115 60.0 64.7 63.9 2.177 2.179 181.0
0.250 0.111 115 31.0 26.4 31.9 1.089 1.089 90.50.250 0.222 115 63.0 55.1 63.9 2.177 2.179 181.0
0.250 0.333 115 69.0 70.8 95.8 3.266 3.268 271.4
0.333 0.055 115 5.0 2.6 10.3 0.539 0.351 29.10.333 0.111 115 15.0 13.7 20.8 1.089 0.708 58.8
0.333 0.222 115 46.0 37.9 41.5 2.177 1.416 117.6
0.333 0.333 115 50.0 55.1 62.3 3.266 2.123 176.40.500 0.111 115 0.0 1.4 8.8 1.089 0.302 25.1
0.500 0.222 115 14.0 8.8 17.7 2.177 0.604 50.10.500 0.333 115 25.0 19.1 26.5 3.266 0.905 75.20.500 0.444 115 33.0 29.2 35.4 4.354 1.207 100.3
0.500 0.555 115 42.0 38.2 44.2 5.443 1.509 125.30.600 0.444 115 8.0 12.3 18.7 4.354 0.639 53.1
0.600 0.555 115 18.0 18.4 23.4 5.443 0.799 66.30.700 0.555 115 4.0 6.6 13.7 5.443 0.466 38.7
Average Difference (M): -0.3 -3.9Standard Deviation (M): 5.8 9.4
41
Table A.3: Comparison of MSI and VI Methods withObservations of Lawther and Griffin, 1986.
-------------------- -VI'87f a t MS MSI'76 VI a(rms) a* dose
(Hz) (g) (min) (M) (M) (%) (ms2) (ms-2) (ms-1.5)
0.170 0.006 180 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.061 0.061 6.30.170 0.049 180 14.0 12.0 17.5 0.477 0.477 49.60.170 0.009 180 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.092 0.092 9.60.170 0.050 180 14.0 12.8 18.1 0.493 0.494 51.30.170 0.031 180 8.0 4.6 11.3 0.308 0.308 32.00.170 0.046 180 6.0 10.7 16.5 0.450 0.450 46.80.170 0.070 180 27.0 22.2 25.3 0.689 0.690 71.70.170 0.042 180 3.0 8.8 15.0 0.408 0.408 42.40.170 0.077 180 38.0 25.1 27.6 0.751 0.752 78.10.170 0.057 180 24.0 15.9 20.5 0.559 0.559 58.10.170 0.034 180 7.0 5.6 12.2 0.331 0.332 34.50.170 0.058 180 7.0 16.3 20.8 0.567 0.567 58.90.170 0.051 180 13.0 13.3 18.5 0.503 0.503 52.3
0.170 0.040 180 8.0 8.1 14.4 0.391 0.392 40.70.170 0.023 180 6.0 1.9 8.2 0.223 0.223 23.10.170 0.057 360 37.0 19.0 28.9 0.557 0.6S7 81.9
0.170 0.031 360 8.0 6.3 15.7 0.302 0.302 44.40.170 0.046 360 20.0 13.5 23.3 0.449 0.449 66.1
0.170 0.052 360 25.0 16.9 26.7 0.515 0.515 75.7
0.170 0.034 360 15.0 8.0 17.5 0.337 0.338 49.6
0.170 0.037 360 12.0 9.3 19.0 0.366 0.366 53.80.170 0.026 360 8.0 4.4 13.3 0.257 0.257 37.8
Average Difference (M): 3.1 -3.5Standard Deviation (.): 6.9 6.8
42
PART IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY
MOTION SICKNESS
1. AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 433: "Motion Cues in Flight Simulation andSimulator Induced Sickness", Aerospace Medical Panel Symposium, Brussels, Bel-gium, 29 September to 1 October, 1987.
2. Alexander, S.J., Cotzin, M., Hill, C.J., Ricciuti, E.A., and Wendt, G.R.: "WesleyanUniversity Studies of Motion Sickness: VII. The Effects of Sickness on Performance",Journal of Physiology 20:31-39, 1945.
3. Allen, G.:- "Proposed Limits for Exposure to Whole-Body Vertical Vibration, 0.1to 1.0 Hz", AGARD CP 145, Conference on Vibration and Combined Stresses inAdvanced Systems, Oslo, Norway, 1974.
4. Anderson, W.R., Willems, G.C. and Guignard, J.C.: "Analysis of Head Motion Dur-ing Simulated, Rough Water Operation of a 2200 ton Surface Effect Ship" AGARDConference Proceedings No. 372, "Motion Sickness: Mechanisms, Prediction, Preven-tion and Treatment", Neuilly, France, May 1984.
5. Andrew, R.N. and Lloyd, A.R.J.M.: "Full Scale Comparative Measurements of theBehaviour of Two Frigates in Severe Head Seas", Trans RINA, Volume 123, 1981.
6. Applebee, T.A., McNamara, T.M. and Baitis, A.E.: "Investigation into the Seakeep-ing Characteristics of the US Coast Guard 140-ft WTGB Class Cutters: Sea TrialAboard the USCGC MOBILE BAY", NSDRC Report SPD 0938-01, March 1980.
7. Attias, J., Gordon, C., Ribak, J., Binah, 0., and Rolnick, A.: "Efficacy of Transder-mal Scopolamine Against Seasickness: A 3-Day Study at Sea", Aviation, Space, andEnvironmental Medicine 58(1):60-2, January 1987.
8. Baitis, A.E.: "The Influence of Ship Motions on Operations of SII-2F Helicopters fromDE-1052 Class Ships: Sea Trial with USS BOWEN (DE-1079)", DTNSRDC/SPD-556-01, July 1975.
9. Baitis, A.E., Woolaver, D.A., and Beck, T.A.: "Rudder Roll Stabilization for CoastGuard Cutters and Frigates", Naval Engineers Journal 95(3):267-82, 1983.
10. Baker, C.H.: "Motion and Human Performance: A Review of the Literature", HumanFactors Research, Inc., Technical Report 770-1 (Section 1), 1966.
11. Bales, N.K. and Cielslowski, D.S.: "A Guide to Generic Seakeeping PerformanceAssessment", Naval Engineers Journal 93(2), April 1981.
12. Bales, S.L., Lee, W.T., and Voelker, J.M.: "St.ndardized Wave and Wind Environ-ments for NATO Operational Areas", DTNSDRC/SPD-0919-01, July 1981.
13. Bard, P.: "Physiological Investigation of the Causes and Nature of Motion Sickness",National Research Council, Division of Medical Sciences, Committee on AviationMedicine, Report No. 485, September 1945.
43
14. Barr, R.K. "Cold Weather Handbook for Surface Ships", US Navy, CNO Surface ShipSurvivability Office, OP-03C2, Washington DC, May 1988.
15. Beevis, D. and Hill, M.: "The Designer as the Limiting Factor in Military Systems".Proceedings of the 24th DRG Seminar on the Human as a Limiting Element in MilitarySystems, DCIEM, Volume 1, DS/A/DR(83)-170-Vol-1, May 1983.
16. Benson, A.J.: "Motion Sickness", Aviation Medicine, Ernsting, J., and King, P. (ed.),Butterworth, 1988.
17. Dittner, A.C. (Jr.), Guignard, J.C.:"Human Factors Engineering Principles for Mini-mizing Adverse Ship Motion Effects: Theory and Practice", Naval Engineers Journal97(4):205-13, May 1985.
18. Bles, W. and de Jong, A.A.: "Prediction of Seasickness Susceptibility", Institute forPerception RVO-TNO, Netherlands, 1984.
19. Bock, O.L., and Oman, C.M.: "Dynamics of Subjective Discomfort in Motion Sicknessas Measured with a Magnitude Estimation Method", Aviation, Space, and Environ-mental Medicine 53(8):773-7, 1982.
20. Boehm-Davis, D.A.: "Human Factors of Flight-Deck Automation: Report on a NASA-
Industry Workshop", Ergonomics 10:953-62, 1983.
21. Bost, J.R., Castle, J. and Edwards, J.: "Human Factors in Naval Ship Design -An Update", Proceedings Tenth Ship Technology and Research (STAR) Symposium,SNAME, May 1985.
22. British Standards Institution: "Guide to Measurement and Evaluation of HumanExposure to Whole-Body Vibration", BS6841, 1987.
23. Bruel and Kjaer Instruments: "Human Body Vibration", Bruel and Kjaer InstrumentsTechnical Review No. 1, Marlborough MA 1982.
24. Bruner, J.M.R.: "Seasickness in a Destroyer Escort Squadron", US Armed ForcesMedical Journal 6(4):469-90, 1955.
25. Burns, K.C.: "Motion Sickness Incidence: Distribution of Time to First Emesis and
Comparison of Some Complex Motion Conditions", Aviation, Space, and Environ-mental Medicine, 55(6):521-7, 1984.
26. Coe, T.J.: "Technical Evaluation of the 60 Foot Small Waterplane Twin Hull (SWATHLShip HALCYON", US Coast Guard Report No. CG-D-08-88, USCG Research andDevelopment Center, August 1987.
27. Cohen, H.H.: "Human Performance and Transmissibility Under Sinusoidal and MixedVertical Vibration", Ergonomics 20(3):207-16, 1977.
28. Collins, W.E.: "Adaptation to Vestibular Disorientation. XII. Habituation of Vestibu-lar Responses: An Overview", FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute report FAA-AM-74-3.
March 1974.
44
29. Comstock, E.N. and Keane, J.R. (Jr.): "Seakeeping by Design", Naval EngineersJournal 92(2), 1980.
30. Comstock, E.N., Bales, S.L. and Gentile, D.M.: "Seakeeping Performance Comparisonof Air Capable Ships", Naval Engineers Journal 94(2), 1982.
31. Conolly, J.E.: "Standards of Good Seakeeping for Destroyers and Frigates in HeadSeas", Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Symposium on the Dynamics of MarineVehicles and Structures in Waves, 1979.
32. Cramer, D.B., Graybiel, A. and Oosterveld, W.S.: "Successful Transfer of AdaptationAcquired in a Slow Rotation Room to Motion Environments in Navy Flight Training",Acta Otolaryngol 85:74-84, 1987.
33. Cronin, C.M., Sallan, S.E., and Wolfe, L.: "Transdermal Scopolamine in MotionSickness", Pharmacotherapy 2(1):29-31, 1982.
34. Davies, J.W.: "Environment in Motion - HM Ships at Sea. Part II. Motion Illness",Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service 68(1):5-11, 1982.
35. DiMarco, R.J. and Jex, H.R.: "Effects of Simulated Surface Effect Ship Motion onCrew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 2: Facility, Test Conditions and Schedules",Systems Technology, Inc. Report TR-1070-2, under contract APL/JHU600379 forApplied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, May 1977.
36. Dolezal, H., Connon, T.R., and O'Neal, M.R.: "The Effects of Optical Disorientationon Task Performance and Motion Sickness", Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory,Aerospace Medical Division, Air Force Systems Command, Wright-Patterson AFB,Report No. AAMRL-TR-85-079, 1985.
37. Donnelley, H.L.: "A Collection of Motion Data and Habitability Studies for SES andOther Ships", Applied Physics Laboratory Report No. APL/JHU SES-016(QM-76-047), 1976.
38. Dowd, P.J.: "Resistance to Motion Sickness Through Repeated Exposure to CoriolisStimulation", Aerospace Medicine 36:452-455, 1965.
39. Dowd, P.J.: "Sleep Deprivation Effects on the Vestibular System Habituation Pro-cess", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(6):748-52, 1974.
40. Dowd, P.J., Moore, E.W., and Cramer, R.L.: "Relationships of Fatigue and Mo-tion Sickness to Vestibulo-Ocular Responses to Coriolis Stimulation", Human Factors17(1):98-105, 1975.
41. Drylie, M.E.: "An Analysis of Physiological Data Related to Motion Sickness for Usein a Real Time Motion Sickness Indicator", (Thesis) USAF Institute of Technology,Wright-Patterson AFB, AFIT/GE/87D-16, December 1987.
42. du Ross, S.H.: "Human Reaction to Low Frequency Motion - Preliminary Studies".Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough, UK, RAE-TM-FS-365, November 1980.
45
43. Farris, W.E.: "Ride Quality Criteria and Assessment for Advanced Marine Vehicles".AIAA Eighth Advanced Marine Systems Conference, San Diego CA, September 22 -24, 1986.
44. Fix, E.L.: "Motion Sickness: Quantitative, Algorithmic Malaise Indication in RealTime", (Thesis) USAF Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, AFIT/GE/ENG/87D-18, December 1987.
45. Frank, L., Kennedy, R.S., Kellog, R.S., and McCauley, M.E.: "Simulator Sickness:A Reaction to a Transformed Perceptual World. I. Scope of Problem", Essex Corp.Report EOTR-88-2, Orlando FL, NTIS AD-a192 438, 1983.
46. Gal, R.: "Assessment of Seasickness and its Consequences by a Method of Peer Eval-uation", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 46:836-9, 1975.
47. Gaudreault, P.J.: " Motion Sickness: a Study of its Effects on Human Physiology".(Thesis) USAF Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, AFIT/GE/87D-20.December 1987.
48. "Giannotti, J.G., Jawish, W.K. and van Mater, P.R. (Jr.): "Development of RationalSeakeeping Design Criteria for Ships and Other Floating Platforms", ChesapeakeSection of SNAME, December 1977.
49. Gibson, W.C., Manning, G.W., and Cohen, C.: "The Value of Simple Swings inAcclimatizing to Airsickness", Associate Committee on Aviation Medical Research.National Research Council of Canada, Report No. C2638, October 1943.
50. Gillingham, K.K.: "Training the Vestibule for Aerospace Operations: Central Controlof Vestibular Function", Brooks AFB Texas: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine,Aeromedical Reviews Rev. 8(65):1-29, September 1965.
51. Glaser, E.M.: "Prevention and Treatment of Motion Sickness", Proceedings of theRoyal Society of Medicine 52:965-72, 1959.
52. Glaser, E.M.: The Physiological Basis of Habituation. Oxford University Press. Lon-don, 1966.
53. Graham, R. and Millar, G.: "SHIPM02: An Updated User's Manual for the SIIlPMO
Computer Program Incorporating Measured Sea Spectra and Wave Loads", DREATechnical Memorandum 84/G, May 1984.
54. Graham, R.: "SHIPMO3: Improved Viscous Roll Damping Predictions for the SHIPMO
Computer Program", DREA Technical Memorandum 86/212, May 1986.
55. Graham, R. and Trudelle, C.: "SHIPMO4: An Updated User's Manual for the SHIPMOComputer Program Incorporating an Extended Hydrostatics Capability and an Im-proved Viscous Roll Damping'Model", DREA Technical Communication 87/30-1.March 1987.
46
56. Gray, S., Cheung, B., Money, K., Landolt, J., and Cragg. R.: -Effectiveness of Combi-nations of Antimotion Sickness Drugs", Preprints of 1983 Annual Scientific Meeting.Aerospace Medical Association, May 23-26, Houston, ISSN 0065-3764, 19S3.
57. Graybiel, A. and Lackner, J.R.: "Motion Sickness: Acquisition and Retention ofAdaptation Effects Compared in Three Motion Environments", Aviation. Space, andEnvironmental Medicine, 54(4):307-11, 1983.
58. Graybiel, A. and Knepton, J.: "Dirction-Specific Adaptation Effects Aciuired in aSlow Rotation Room", Aerospace Medicine 43(11):1179-89, 1972.
59. Graybiel, A. and Knepton, J.: "Prevention of Motion Sickness in Flight Maneuvers.Aided by Transfer of Adaptation Effects Acquired in the Laboratory: Ten ConsecutiveReferrals", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 49(7):914-9, 1978.
60. Griffin, M.J.: "Vibration Dose Values for Whole-Body Vibration: Some Examples".UK Informal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot- Watt Univer-sity, Edinburgh, UK-HRV-84, September 21-22, 1984.
61. Graybiel, A., Cramer, D.B. and Wood, C.D.: "Experimental Motion Sickness: Ef-ficacy of Transdermal Scopolamine plus Ephedrine", Aviation, Space. and Environ-mental Medicine, 52(6):337-9, June 1981.
62. Graybiel, A., Guedry, F.E., Johnson, W.D., and Kennedy, R.: "Adaptation to BizarreStimulation of the Semi-Circular Canals as Indicated by the OculogyraJ Illusion".Aerospace Medicine 32:321-27, 1961.
63. Graybiel. A., Wood, C.D., Miller, E.F., and Cramer, D.B.: "Diagnostic Criteria forGrading the Severity of Acute Motion Sickness", Aerospace Medicine 39:453-5, 1968.
64. Greig, G.L.: "Masking of Motion Cues by Random Motion: Comparison of HumanPerformance with a Signal Detection Model", UTIAS Report No. 313, University ofToronto, January 1988.
65. Guedry, F.E., Benson, A.J.. and Moore, H.J.: "Influence of a Visual Display andFrequency of Whole-Body Angular Oscillation on Incidence of Motion Sickness". Avi-ation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 53(6):564-9, 1982.
66. Guignard, J.C. and McCauley, M.E.: "Motion Sickness Incidence Induced by ComplexPeriodic Waveforms", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53(6):554-63.1982 (first presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 1977).
67. Hearn, G.E., Hills, W. and Colton, P.: "Incorporating a Seakeeping Capability in aComputer Aided Preliminary Design System", Proceedings Thirteenth Ship Technol-ogy and Research (STAR) Symposium, Pittsburg PA June 8-10, 1988.
68. Hartle, D.R.: "A Motion Sickness Prediction Mode' and System Description", USAFInstitute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, 4.FIT/GCS/ENG/86D-3, 86-12-00.
69. Hemingway. A. and Green, E.L.: "Airsickness During Early Flying Training", Journalof Aviation Medicine 16:409-16. 19-15.
47
70. Hill, J.: "The Care of the Sea-Sick", the British Medical Journal, Volume 2. October24, 1936.
71. Hosoda, R., Kunitake, Y., Koyama, H., and Nakamuta. K: "A Method for Evaluationof Seakeeping Performance in Ship Design Based on Mission Effectiveness Concept".2nd International Symposium on Practical Desigr in Shipbuilding, Tokyo and Seoul.1983.
72. How, J., Lee, P-S., Seet, L-C., and Tan, P-K.: "The Republic of Singapore Navy'sScopoderm TTS Study: Results After 2,200 Man-Days at Sea", Aviation, Space, andEnvironmental Medicine 59(7):646-50, 1988.
73. Howlett, J.G.: "Motion Sickness", Canadian Medical Association Journal 76:871-3.1957.
74. Igarashi, M., Kobayashi, K., Kulecz, W.B., and Himi, T.: "Change in Susceptibilityto Vestibular-Visual Conflict Sickness in Monkeys by Repeated Exposure". Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Stockh) 102:432-437, 1986.
75. Irwin, A.W. and Goto, T.: "Human Perception, Task Performance and SimulatorSickness in Single and Multi-Axis Frequency Horizontal Linear and Rotational Vibra-tion", UK Informal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, UK-HRV-84, September 21-22, 1984.
76. ISO, "Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration - Part 1: GeneralRequirements", International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 2631/1-1985(E).1985.
77. ISO, "Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration - Part 3: Evaluationof Exposure to Whole-Body Z-Axis Vertical Vibration in the Frequency range 0.1 to0.63 Hz", International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 2631/3-1985(E), 1985.
78. Jacobson. I.D. and Richards, L.G.: "Ride Quality Evaluation II: Modelling of AirlinePassenger Comfort", Ergonomics 19(1):1-10, 1976.
79. Jarvis, N.R. and Uyeda, C.T. (Jr.): "An Analysis of Potential Predictive Parameters ofMotion Sickness Using a Computerized Biophysical Data Acquisition System". USAFInstitute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, AFIT/GSO/ENG/85D-1, 85-12-00.
80. Jex, H.R.. DiMarco, R.J., and Clement, W.F.: "Effects of Simulated Surface EffectShip Motions on Crew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 3: Vusual-Motoro Tasks andSubjective Evaluations", Systems Technology, Inc. report TR 1070-3, under contractAPL/JHU600379, Applied Physics Laboratory,Johns Hopkins University, May 1977.
81. Johnson. W.H. and Sunahara, F.A.: "Motion Sickness - Physiological Effects, Phase2", University of Toronto, August 1987.
82. Johnson, W.H. and Taylor, N.B.G.: "Some Experiments on the Relative Effectivenessof Various Types of Accelerations on Motion Sickness". Aerospdce Medicine 32:205-s.1961.
48
83. Kanda, H., Goto, D. and Tanabe, Y.: "Ultra-Low Frequency Ship Vibrations andMotion Sickness Incidence", Industrial Health 15(!):1-12, 1977.
84. Keinan, G., Friedland, N., Yitzhaky, N., and Moran, A.: "Biographical Physiologicaland Personality Variables as Predictors of Performance in Motion", Journal of AppliedPsychology 66(2):233-41, 1981.
85. Kennedy, R.S., Bittner, A.C. (Jr.), Carter, R.C., Krause, M., and Harbeson, M.M.:"Performance Evaluation Tests for Environmental Research (PETER): Collected Pa-pers", Naval Biodynamics Laboratory, New Orleans, NBDL-80R008, July 1981.
86. Kennedy, R.S., Graybiel, A., McDonough, R.C., and Beckwith, F.D.: "Symptomatol-ogy Under Storm Conditions in the North Atlantic in Control Subjects and in Personswith Bilateral Labyrinthine Defects", Acta Oto-Laryngologica 66: 533-40, 1968.
87. Kennedy, R.S., Tolhurst, G.C., and Graybiel, A.: "The Effects of Visual Deprivationon Adaptation to a Rotating Environment", Naval School of Aviation Medicine ReportNSAM-918, Pensacola, 1975.
88. Jeffrey, R.D., Vanderploeg, J.M., Santy, P.A., Jennings, R.T., and Stewart, D.F.:"Space Motion Sickness During 24 Flights of the Space Shuttle", Aviation, Space,and Environmental Medicine 59(12):1185-9, 1988.
89. Kjellberg, A. and Wikstr6m, B.O.: "Whole-Body Vibration: Exposure Time andAcute Effects - a Review", Ergonomics 28(3):545-54, 1985.
90. Kohl, R.L.: "Neurochemical Background and Approaches in the Understanding ofMotion Sickness", Technology Inc., ISSN 0094-5765, July 1982.
91. Laitnen, L.A., Tokola, 0., Gothoni, G., and Vapaatalo, H.: "Scopolamine Aloneor Combined with Ephedrine in Seasickness: A Double Blind, Placebo-ControlledStudy", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Mediline, 52(1):6-10, January 1981.
92. Landolt, J.P., and Monaco, C,: "Seasickness in Occupants of Totally-Enclosed Motor-Propelled Survival Craft (TEMPSC)", DCIEM Report 89-RR-14, April 1989.
93. Lamb, G.R.: "Some Guidance for Hull Form Selection for SWATH Ships", MarineTechnology 25(4):239-52, 1988.
94. Lawther, A.: "A Survey of Motion Sickness on a Passenger Ship", Proceedings of theUK Informal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, NIAE, Silsoe, Berks,September 1983.
95. Lawther, A.: "A Comparison of the Motions of Marine Passenger Vessels", UK In-formal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot-Watt University.Edinburgh, UK-HRV-84, September 1984.
96. Lawther, A. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Motion of a Ship at Sea and the ConsequentMotion Sickness Amongst Passengers", Ergonomics 29(4):535-52. 1986.
49
97. Lawther, A. and Griffin, M.J.: "Prediction of the Incidence of Motion Sickness fromthe Magnitude, Frequency and Duration of Vertical Oscillations", Journal of theAcoustical Society of America 82(3):957-66, 1987.
98. Lawther, A. and Griffin, M.J.: "A Survey of the Occurrence of Motion SicknessAmongst Passengers at Sea", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 59(5):399-406, 1988.
99. Lawther, A. and Griffin, M.J.: "Motion Sickness and Motion Characteristics of Vesselsat Sea", Ergonomics 31(10):1373-94, 1988.
100. Lentz, J.M. and Guedry, F.E.: "Motion Sickness Susceptibility: A Retrospective Com-parison of Laboratory Experiments", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine
49(11):1281-8, 1978.
101. Lidvall, H.F.: "Mechanisms of Motion Sickness as Reflected in the Vertigc and Nystag-mus Responses to Repeated Coriolis Stimulation", Acta Oto-Laryngologica 55:527-36,1962.
102. Lloyd, A.R.J.M. and Andrew, R.N.: "Criteria for Ship Speed in Rough Weather",Proceedings of the 18th ATTC, Volume 2, pp 541-65, Annapolis, August 1977.
103. Lloyd, A.R.J.M. and Hanson, P.J.: "The Operational Effectiveness of the ShipbourneNaval Helicopter", Volume 1, RINA International Symposium on the Air Threat atSea, London, June 11-14, 1985.
104. Magee, L.E. and Tully, P.J.: "Diagnosis of Simulator Sickness in the CF-18 WST',DCIEM Report 86-R-01, November 1985.
105. Malone, W.L.: "Effects of Simulated Surface Effect Ship Motions on Crew Habitability- Phase II. Volume One; Summary Report and Comments", Naval Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory report PMS-304 TR 1070, April 1981.
106. Matsnev, E.I. and Bodo, D.: "Experimental Assessment of Selected AntimotionDrugs", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 55(4):281-6, 1984.
107. Mauro, C.A. and Smith, D.E.: "Preliminary Analysis of Motion Sickness Incidence
Data", Desmatics, Inc., State College (PA), Technical Report 112-8, February 1981.
108. Mauro, C.A. and Smith, D.E.: "A Statistical Analysis of Motion Sickness IncidenceData" Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 54(3):253-7, 1983.
109. McCauley. M.E., Royal, J.W., Wylie, C.D., O'Hanlon, J.F., and Mackie, R.R.: "Mo-tion Sickness Incidence: Exploratory Studies of Habituation, Pitch and Roll, andthe Refinement of a Mathematical Model", Human Factors Research, Inc., TechnicalReport 1733-2 (USN ONR contract N00014-73-C-0040), April 1976.
110. McCauley, M.E., and Borden, D.A.: "Human Response to Whole-Body Motion: ACompilation of Data on Subject Variables in Motion Sickness Research", HumanPerformance Research, Inc., Pacific Missile Test Center, Pt Mugu CA, Report No. 104.1979.
50
111. McCauley, M.E., Royal, J.W., Shaw, J.E., and Schmitt, L.G.: "Effect of Transder-mally Administered Scopolamine in Preventing Motion Sickness", Aviation, Space,and Environmental Medicine, 50(11):1108-11, 1979.
112. McClellan, G.E. and Wiker, S.F.: "A Comparison of Symptomatology and Perfor-mance Degradation for Motion and Radiation Sickness", prepared under contract byPacific-Sierra Research Corporation, for the Defense Nuclear Agency, Report DNA-TR-85-354, Washington DC, May 1985.
113. McClure, J.A., Bicker, G.R., and Lycett, P.: "Rate of Onset of Motion Sickness Habit-uation", Preprints of 1975 Annual Scientific Meeting, Aerospace Medical Association,April 28 - May 1, 1975, San Fransico.
114. McComas, L.A.: "Effects of Simulated Ship Motion on the Performance of the Un-derway Officer of the Deck", Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA, March 1986.
115. McCreight, K.K. and Stahl, R.G.: "Recent Advances in the Seakeeping Assessmentof Ships", Naval Engineers Journal 97(4), May 1985.
116. Mackay, M. and Schmitke, R.T.: "PHHS - A FORTRAN Programme for Ship Pitch,Heave and Seakeeping Prediction", DREA Technical Memorandum 78/B, April 1978.
117. McPherson, M.R.: "A Collection and Statistical Anaylsis of Biophysical Data toPredict Motion Sickness Incidence", USAF Institute of Technology, Wright-PattersonAFB, AFIT/GCS/ENG/86D-21, December 1986.
118. Megighan, D., and Martini, A.: "Motion Sickness and Space Sickness: Clinical andExperimental Findings", ORL 42(4):185-95, 1980.
119. Miller, R.D.: "Motion Sickness: A Study of its Etiology and a Statistical Analysis",USAF Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, AFIT/GCS/ENG/86D-2, De-cember 1986.
120. Money, K.E.: "Motion Sickness", Physiological Reviews 50(1)1-39, 1970.
121. Muir, C.A.: "Drug Treatment of Motion Illness", Journal of the Royal Naval MedicalService 68(3):145-50, 1982.
122. Muir, C.A.: "Motion Sickness - A Bibliography", Royal Naval Personnel ResearchCommittee, UK, SMWP-1/83, September 1983.
123. Naunton, R.F. (ed) The Vestibular System, Academic Press, NY, 1975.
124. Newman, R.A.: "Ship Motion Effects in the Human Factors Design of Ships andShipboard Equipment", Navy Personnel Research and Development Center NPRDC-TR-77-2, November 1976.
125. Noble, R.L.: "Adaptation to Experimental Motion Sickness in Dogs", American Jour-nal of Physiology 154:443-50, 1948.
51
126. O'Hanlon, J.P. and McCauley, M.E.: "Motion Sickness Incidence as a Function ofthe Frequency and Acceleration of Vertical Sinusoidal Motion", Aerospace Medicine,45(4):366-369, 1974.
127. O'Hanilon, J.F., Miller, J.C., and Royal, J.W.: "Effects of Simulated Surface EffectShip Motions on Crew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 4: Crew Cognitive Functions,Physiological Stress, and Sleep", Human Factors Research Inc., report TR 1757-2.under NAVSEA contract N00014-74-C-0450, May 1977.
128. Olson, S.R.: "A Methodology for Qui,tifying the Operational Effectiveness of ShipSeakeeping Characteristics", Center for Naval Analysis, Arlington, February 1977.
129. Oman, C.M.: "A Heuristic Mathematical Model for the Dynamics of Sensory Conflictand Motion Sickness", Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Stockh) Supplement 392, 1982.
130. Oman, C.M., Lichtenberg, B.K., Money, R.K., and McCoy, R.K.: "MIT/CanadianVestibular Experiments with Spacelab-1 Mission: 4. Space Motion Sickness, Symp-toms, Stimuli and Predictability", Experimental Brain Research, 64(2):316-34, Febru-ary 1986.
131. Parrott, A.C.: "Transdermal Scopolamine: A Review of its Effects Upon MotionSickness, Physiological Performance, and Physiological Functioning",Aviation, Space,and Environmental Medicine 60(1):1:9, 1989.
132. Payne, P.R.: "On Quantizing Ride Comfort and Allowable Accelerations", Payne.Inc., Report W.P. No. 196-6, (DTNSRDC contract N00167-76-M-8390), July 1976.
133. Pestov, I.D.: "Cumulation of Stimuli in Motion Sickness", NASA/TTF-528.
134. Pethybridge, R.J., Davies, J.W., and Walters, J.D.: "A Pilot Study on the Incidenceof Seasickness in RN Personnel on Two Ships", RNPRC SMWP 9/78 INM 55/78,1978.
135. Pingree, B.J.W.: "A Review of Human Performance in a Ship Motion Environment".Warship Technology (RINA), No. 4, May 1988.
136. Pitblado, C.B., Mirabile, C.S. (Jr.), and Richa, 1, J.E.: "Adaptation of the VisualVertical During Prolonged Body Tilt Varies With Susceptibility to Motion Sickness",Perception and Motor Skills 51(2):455-8, 1981.
137. Potvin, A.R., Sadoff, M. and Billingham, J.: "Motion Sickness and Otolith Sensi-tivity: A Pilot Study of Habituation to Linear Acceleration", Aviation, Space, andEnvironmental Medicine 48(11):1068-75, 1977.
138. Preston, F.S.: "Motion Sickness", The Practitioner 206:609-14, 1971.
139. Reason, J.: "Motion Sickness: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations", Ap-plied Ergonomics 9(3):163-7, 1978.
140. Reason, J.T.: "Motion Sickness Adaptation: a Neural Mismatch Model", Journal ofthe Royal Society of Medicine, 71:819-29, 1978.
52
141. Reason, J.T. and Benson, A.J.: "Voluntary Movement Control and Adaptation toCross-Coupled Stimulus", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 49:1275-80,1978.
142. Reason, J.T. and Brand, J.J.: "Progressive Adaptation to Coriolis Accelerations Asso-ciated with 1 RPM Increments in the Velocity of the Slow Rotation Room", AerospaceMedicine 41:73-79. 1970.
143. Reason, J.T. and Brand, J.J.: "Motion Sickness", London: Academic Press, 1975.
144. Reason, J.T. and Graybiel, A.: "An Attempt to Measure Degree of Adaptation Pro-duced by Differing Amounts of Coriolis Vestibular Stimulation", Naval AerospaceMedical Institute, NAMI-1084, July 1969.
145. Reason, J.T. and Graybiel, A.: "Adaptation to Coriolis Accelerations: Its Transferto the Opposite Direction of Rotation as a Function of Intervening Activity at ZeroVelocity", Naval Aerospace Medicine Institute, Report NASA R-93, August 1969.
146. Reason, J.T. and Graybiel, A.: "Changes in Subjective Estimates of Well-Being Dur-ing the Onset and Remission of Motion Sickness Symptomatology in the Slow RotationRoom", Aerospace Medicine 41(2):166-71, 1970.
147. Renard, J.W.: "Human Factors: The Fleet Perspective", Proceedings Tenth ShipTechnology and Research (STAR) Symposium, SNAME, Norfolk, May 1985.
148. Richards, L.G.: "Time Dependence and Temporal Information Integration for HumanReaction to Motion", Ergonomics 21(11):913-24, 1978.
149. Saklem, A.A. and Almeida, A.: "U.S. Navy Habitability Controls in Relation to Hu-man Factors", Proceedings Tenth Ship Technology and Research (STAR) Symposium,SNAME, Norfolk, May 1985.
150. Schaffer, R.L., Byers, D.W. and Slager, J.J.: "Towards an Improved Hull Form DesignMethodology", Naval Engineers Journal 93(3), May 1983.
151. Schmedtje, J.F. (Jr.), Oman, C.M., Letz, R., and Baker, E.L.: "Effects of Scopolamineand Dextroamphetamine on Human Performance", Aviation, Space, and Environmen-tal M,"•,Le ':_,,i" 59:407-10, 1988.
152. Schmitke, R.T.: "Seakeeping Algorithm for the DREA Monohull Frigate/Destroyc,Concept Exploration Model", DREA Technical Memorandum 82/K, October 1982.
153. Schmikte, R.T., and Murdey, D.C.: "Seakeeping and Resistance Trade-Offs in FrigateHull Form Design", Thirteenth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, October 6-10,Office of Naval Research, Tokyo, 1980.
154. Schmitke, R.T. and Whitten, B.W.: "SHIPMO - A FORTRAN Program to PredictShip Motions in Waves", DREA Technical Memorandum 81/C, October 1981.
155. Sharma, K.: "Susceptibility to Motion Sickness", Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma)29(2):157-62, 1980.
53
156. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Subjective Response to Very Low Frequency Vibrations", Avi-ation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 46(6): 785-90, June 1975.
157. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Human Response to Whole-Body Vibration", Perceptual MotionSkills 34:127-60 (Monograph Supplement 1-V34), 1972.
158. Singleton, W.T.: "Academic Progress in Human Factors During the NATO Pro-gramme, 1967 - 83", Ergonomics 27(8):833-46, 1984.
159. Smith, D.E.: "Prediction of Motion Sickness Incidence", US Technical Report No. 102-4, 1977.
160. Smith, D.E.: "A Statistical Examination of Three Approaches for Predicting MotionSickness Incidence", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53(2):162-5, 1982.
161. St. Denis, M.: "On the Environmental Operability of Sea-Going Systems", SNAMETechnical and Research Bulletin 1-32, January 1976.
162. Stark, D.R.: "Ride Quality Characterization and Evaluation in the Low FrequencyRegime with Applications to Marine Vehicles", Conference on Ergonomics and Trans-port, Swansea, 1980.
163. Stark, D.R.: "Marine Vehicle Ride Quality: A State-of-the-Art Assessment", Trans-portatioi Research Record 894, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 1982.
164. Sunahara, F.A. and Johnson, W.H.: "Motion Sickness - Physiological Effects andPrevention", University of Toronto, January 1986.
165. Thomas, D.J., Guignard, J.C. and Willems, G.C.: "The Problem of Defining Criteriafor Protection of Crew from Low-Frequency Ship Motion Effects", Proceedings ofthe 24th DRG Seminar on the Human as a Limiting Element in Military Systems,DCIEM, May 1983, Volume 1, DS/A/DR(83)-170-Vol-1.
166. Thomas, D.J., Majewski, P.L., Guignard, J.C., and Ewing, C.L.: "Effects of Simulated
Surface Effect Ship Motions on Crew Habitability - Phase II. Volume Five; ClinicalMedical Effects on Volunteers", Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory ReportPMS-304 TR 1070, May 1977.
167. US DOD "Military Specification: Flight Control Systems", MIL-F-9490D June 1975.
168. US DOD, "Military Standard; Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Sys-tems, Equipment and Facilities", MIL-STD-1472C, 2 May 1981.
169. von Gierke, H.E.: "The ISO Standard Guide for the Evaluation of Human Exposure toWhole-Body Vibration", Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Report AFAMRL-TR-75-17, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, February 1975.
170. Walters, J.D.: "Motion Sickness", Journal of the Philippine Federation of PrivateMedical Practitioners 13:789-96. 1964.
54
171. Wiker, S.F., Kennedy, R.S., McCauley, M.E., and Peppqr, R.L.: "Reliability, Validity
and Application of an Improved Scale for Assessment of Motion Sickness Severity",
NASA Report CG-D-29-79, 1979.
172. Wiker, S.F. Kennedy, R.S., McCauley, M.E., and Pepper, R.L.: "Susceptibility to
Seasickness: Influence of Hull Design and Steaming Direction", Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine 50(10):1046-1051, 1979.
173. Wiker, S.F. and Pepper. R.L.: "Adaptation of Crew Performance, Stress and Mood
Aboard a SWATH and Monohull Vessel", USCG-D-18-81, 1981.
174. Wiker, S.F., Pepper, R.L. and McCauley, M.E.: "A Vessel Class Comparison of Phys-
iological, Affective State and Psychomotor Performance Changes in Men at Sea",
USCG Report USCG-D-07-81, August 1980.
175. Wilpizeski, C.R.: "Recent Advances in Experimental Motion Sickness", Transactionsof the Philadelphia Academy of Opthamology and Otolaryngology 37(2)214-22, 1985.
176. Wood, C.D.: "Antimotion Sickness and Antiemetic Drugs", Drugs, 17:471-9, 1979.
177. Wood, C.D. and Graybiel, M.D.: "A Theory of Motion Sickness Based on Pharma-cological Reactions", Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 11:621-9, September-October 1970.
178. Wood, C.D. and Graybiel, A.: "Theory of Antimotion Sickness Drug Mechanisms",Aerospace Medicine 43(3):249-52, 1972.
179. Wood, C.D., Manno, J.E., Manno, B.R., Odenheimer, R.C., and Bairnsfather, L.E.:"The Effect of Antimotion Sickness Drugs on Habituation to Motion", Aviation.Space, and Environmental Medicine 57:539-42, 1986.
180. Woolaver, D.A. and Peters, J.B.: "Comparative Ship Performance Sea Trials for the
US Coast Guard Cutters MELLON and CAPE CORWIN and the US Navy Small
Waterplane Area Twin Hull Ship KAIMALINO", DTNSRDC-80/037, March 1980.
55
BIODYNAMIC PROBLEMS
181. Allen, G.R.: "A Critical Look at Biodynamic Modelling in Relation to Specificationsfor Human Tolerance of Vibration and Shock, Part II", AGARD No. 253. 1979.
182. Allen, G.R.: "Vibiation Requirements for Ride Quality: Recent Progress and Trends",Transportation Research Record 894, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC,1982.
183. Andrew, R.N. and Lloyd, A.R.J.M.: "Full Scale Comparative Measurements of theBehaviour of Two Frigates in Severe Head Seas", Trans RINA, Volume 123, 1981.
184. ANSI: "American National Standard. Guide for Evaluation of Human Exposure toWhole-Body Vibration", ANSI S3.18-1979, Standards Secretariat, Acoustical Societyof America, New York NY, 1979.
185. Applebee, T.A., McNamara, T.M. and Baitis, A.E.: "Investigation into the Seakeep-ing Characteristics of the US Coast Guard 140-ft WTGB Class Cutters: Sea TrialAboard the USCGC MOBILE BAY", NSDRC Report SPD 0938-01, March 1980.
186. Baitis, A.E., Applebee, T.R. and McNamara, T.M.: "Human Factors ConsiderationsApplied to the Operations of the FFG-8 and LAMPS Mk III", Naval Engineers Journal97(4), May 1984.
187. Baitis, A.E., Bales, S.L., McCreight, W.R., and Meyers, W.G.: "Prediction of Ex-treme Ammunition Cargo Forces at Sea", DTNSRDC/SPD-704-01, July 1976.
188. Baitis, A.E., Woolaver, D.A., and Beck, T.A.: "Rudder Roll Stabilization for CoastGuard Cutters and Frigates", Naval Engineers Journal 95(3):267-82, 1983.
189. Barnes, G.R. and Rance, B.H.: "Head Movement Induced by Angular Oscillation ofthe Body in the Pitch and Roll Axes", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine46(8), August 1975.
190. Beevis, D. and Hill, M.: "The Designer as the Limiting Factor in Military Systems".Proceedings of the 24th DRG Seminar on the Human as a Limiting Element in MilitarySystems, DCIEM, Volume 1, DS/A/DR(83)-l70-Vol-1, May 1983.
191. British Standards Institution: "Guide to Measurement and Evaluation of IlumanExposure to Whole-Body Vibration", BS6841, 1987.
192. Buchmann, E.:"Criteria for Human Reaction to Environmental Vibration on NavalShips", David Taylor Model Basin Report DTMB/R-1635, June 1962.
193. Clarke, M.J.: "A Study of the Available Evidence on Duration Effects on Comfortand Task Proficiency Under Vibration", Journal of Sound and Vibration 65(1):1-10.1979.
194. Clevenson, S.A., Dempsey, T.K., and Leatherwood, J.D.: "Effect of Vibration Dura-tion on Human Discomfort", NASA Technical Paper 1283, 1978.
56
195. Coe, T.J.: "Seakeeping and Vibration Tests of the Coast Guard 110' Surface EffectShip SEA BIRD Class (WSES)", US Coast Guard Report CG-D-32-84, September1984.
196. Coles, S.H.: "The Effects of Noise and Vibration upon Human Performance: Ii. pli-cations for the Operation of Military Systems", Proceedings of the 24th DRG Sem-inar on the Human as a Limiting Element in Military Systems. DCIEM, Volume 1,DS/A/DR(83)-170-Vol-1, May 1983.
197. Collins, A.P.: "Decrements in Tracking and Visual Performance During Vibration".Human Pactors 15(4):379-393, 1973.
198. Corbridge, C. and Griffin, M.J.: "Vibration and Comfort: Vertical and Lateral Motionin the Range 0.5 to 5.0 Hz", Ergonomics 29(3):249-72, 1986.
199. Dempsey, T.K., Leatherwood, J.D., and Clevenson, S.A.: "Discomfort Criteria forSingle-Axis Vibrations", NASA Technical Paper 1422, 1979.
200. DiMarco, R.J. and Jex, H.R.: "Effects of Simulated Surface Effect Ship Motion onCrew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 2: Facility, Test Conditions and Schedules".Systems Technology, Inc. Report TR-1070-2, under contract APL/JHU600379 forApplied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, May 1977.
201. Donati, P., Grosjean, A., Mistrot, P., and Roure, L.: "The Subjective Equivalence ofSinusoidal and Random Whole-Body Vibration in the Sitting Position (an Experimen-tal Study Using the 'Floating Reference Vibration' Method", Ergonomics 26(3):251-73, 1983.
202. Dowd, P.J.: "Sleep Deprivation Effects on the Vestibular System Habituation Pro-cess", Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(6):748-52, 1974.
203. Dowd, P.J., Moore, E.W., and Cramer, R.L.: "Relationships of Fatigue and Mo-tion Sickness to Vestibulo-Ocular Responses to Coriolis Stimulation", Human Factors17(1):98-105, 1975.
204. Farris, W.E.: "Ride Quality Criteria and Assessment lor Advanced Marine Vehicles",AIAA Eighth Advanced Marine Systems Conference, San Diego CA, September 22 -24, 1986.
205. Fothergill, L.C. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Use of an Intensity Matching Techniqueto Evaluate Human Response to Whole-Body Vibration", Ergonomics 20(3):249-61.1977.
206. Fothergill, L.C. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Evaluation of Discomfort Produced by Mul-tiple Frequency Whole-Body Vibration", Ergonomics 20(3):263-76, 1977.
207. Fothergill, L.C. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Subjective Magnitude of Whole-Body Vibra-tions", Ergonomics 20(5):521-33, 1977.
208. Fraser, T.M., Hoover, G.N. and Asbe, M.D.: "Tracking Performance During LowFrequency Vibration", Aerospace Medicine, 32:829-35, September 1961.
57
209. Gauthier, G.M., Roll, J.P., Martin, B., and Harlay, F.: "Effects of Whole-Body Vi-brations on Sensory Motor System Performance in Man", Aviation, Space, and Enivi-
ronmental Medicine, 52(8):473-9, August 1981.
210. "Giannotti, J.G., Jawish, W.K. and van Mater, P.R. (Jr.): "Development of RationalSeakeeping Design Criteria for Ships and Other Floating Platforms", ChesapeakeSection of SNAME, December 1977.
211. Graham, R.: "Motion-Induced Interruptions as Ship Operability Criteria", submittedfor publication in the Naval Engineers Journal, 1989.
212. Greig, G.L.: "Masking of Motion Cues by Random Motion: Comparison of HumanPerformance with a Signal Detection Model", University of Toronto, UTIAS ReportNo. 313, CN ISSN 0082-5255, January 1988.
213. Griffin, M.J.: "Levels of Whole-Body Vibration Affecting Human Vision", Aviation.Space, and Environmental Medicine 46(8):1033-40, 1975.
214. Griffin, M.J.: "Subjective Equivalence of Sinusoidal and Random Whole-Body Vibra-tion", Journal of the American Acoustical Society 60(5), 1976.
215. Griffin, M.J.: "Vibration Dose Values for Whole-Body Vibration: Some Examples".
UK Informal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot-Watt Univer-sity, Edinburgh, UK-HRV-84, September 1984.
216. Griffin, M.J. and Lewis, C.H.: "A Review of the Effects of Vibration on Visual Acu-ity and Continuous Manual Control, Part I: Visual Acuity", Journal of Sound andVibration 56(3):383-413, 1978.
217. Griffin, M.J., Parsons, K.C., and Whitman, E.M.: "Vibration and Comfort IV: Ap-plication of Experimental Results", Ergonomics 25(7):721-40, 1982.
218. Griffin, M.J. and Whitman, E.M.: "Assessing the Discomfort of Dual-Axis Vibration".Journal of Sound and Vibration, 54(1):107-16, 1977.
219. Griffin, M.J. and Whitham, E.M.: "Individual Variability and its Effect on Subjectiveand Biodynamic Response to Whole-Body Vibration", Journal of Sound and Vibration
58(2):239-50, 1978.
220. Griffin, M.J., Whitman, E.M. and Parsons, K.C.: "Vibration and Comfort I: Trans-lational Seat Vibration", Ergonomics 25(7):603-30, 1982.
221. Guignard, J.C. and King, P.F.: "Aeromedical Aspects of Vibration and Noise",AGARD No. 151, 1972.
222. Harrah, C.B. and Shoenberger, R.W.: "Effect of Body Supination Angle on SubjectiveResponse to Whole-Body Vibration", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine.52(1):28-32, 1981.
223. Hu Zhenxi, "A New Suggestion About Vibration Criterion for Ships", UK InformalGroup Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot-Watt University. Edinburgh.
UK-HRV-84, September 1984.
58
224. Irwin, A.W. and Goto, T.: "Human Perception, Task Performance and SimulatorSickness in Single and Multi-Axis Frequency Horizontal Linear and Rotational Vibra-tion", UK Informal Group Meeting on Human Response to Vibration, Heriot-WattUniversity, Edinburgh, UK-HRV-84, September 1984.
225. ISO: "Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration - Part 1: GeneralRequirements", International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 2631 / 1-1985(E),1985.
226. ISO: "Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-Body Vibration - Part 3: Evaluationof Exposure to Whole-Body Z-Axis Vertical Vibration in the Frequency range 0.1 to0.63 Hz", International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 2631/3-1985(E), 1985.
227. ISO: "Guide to the Evaluation of the Response of Occupants of Fixed Structures.Especially Buildings and Off-Shore Structures, to Low Frequency Horizontal Motion(0.063 to 1 Hz)", International Organization for Standardisation, ISO 6897, 1984.
228. Jacobson, I.D. and Richards, L.G.: "Ride Quality Evaluation II: Modelling of AirlinePassenger Comfort", Ergonomics 19(1):1-10, 1976.
229. Jex, H.R., O'Hanlon, J.F., and Ewing, C.L.: "Simulated Rough Water OperationsDuring Long Cruises in a 2000-ton Surface Effect Ship, Phases 1 and 1A"., SystemsTechnology Inc., Technical Report 1057-2, 1976.
230. Jex, H.R., DiMarco, R.J., and Clement, W.F.: "Effects of Simulated Surface EffectShip Motions on Crew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 3: Visual-Motor Tasks andSubjective Evaluations", Systems Technology, Inc. report TR 1070-3, under contractAPL/JHU600379, Applied Physics Laboratory,Johns Hopkins University, May 1977.
231. Kuhlthau, A.R. and Wichansky, A.M.: "Summary Report: Workshop on Vehicle RideQuality, Williamsburg VA, August 13-15", NASA Report CP-2013, 1975.
232. Leatherwood, J.D. and Barker, L.M.: "A User-Oriented and Computerized Model forEstimating Vehicle Ride Quality", NASA TP-2299, April 1984.
233. Lewis, C.H. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Effects of Vibration on Manual Control Perfor-mance", Ergonomics 19(2):203-216, 1976.
234. Lewis, C.H., and Griffin, M.J.: "A Review of the Effects of Vibration on Visual Acuityand Continuous Manual Control, Part II: Continuous Manual Control". Journal ofSound and Vibration 56(3):415-57, 1978.
235. Lewis, C.H. and Griffin, M.J.: "Predicting the Effects of Dual-Frequency VerticalVibration on Continuous Manual Control Performance", Ergonomics 21(8):637-50.1978.
236. Lewis, C.H. and Griffin, M.J.: "Mechanisms of the Effects of Vibration Frequency,Level and Duration on Continuous Manual Control Performance",Ergonomics 22(7):855-89, 1979.
59
237. Lewis, C.H. and Griffin, M.J.: "Predicting the Effects of Vibration Frequency andAxis, and Seating Conditions on the Reading of Numeric Displays", Ergonomics23(5):485-500, 1980.
238. Lloyd, A.R.J.M. and Andrew, R.N.: "Criteria for Ship Speed in Rough Weathor",Proceedings of the 18th ATTC, Volume 2:541-65, Annapolis, August 1977.
239. Lloyd, A.R.J.M. and Hanson, P.J.: "The Operational Effectiveness of the ShipbourneNaval Helicopter", Volume 1, RINA International Symposium on the Air Threat atSea, London, June 11-14, 1985.
240. Mackay, M. and Schmitke, R.T.: "PHHS: A FORTRAN Programme for Ship Pitch.Heave and Seakeeping Prediction", DREA Technical Memorandum 78/B, April 1978.
241. Malone, W.L.: "Effects of Simulated Surface Effect Ship Moi Ions on Crew Habitability- Phase II. Volume One; Summary Report and Comments", Naval Aerospace MedicalResearch Laboratory Report PMS-304 TR 1070, April 1981.
242. Martin, B., Gauthier, G.M., Roll, J.P., Hugon, M., and Harlay, F.: "Effects of Whole-Body Vibrations on Standing Posture in Man", Aviation, Space, and EnvironmentalMedicine 51:778-87, 1980.
243. Mayer, K.S.: "Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Bibliography of Scien-tific Publications, 1981 - 1987", NAMRL, July 1988.
244. McLeod, R.W. and Griffin, M.J.: "A Design Guide for Visual Displays and manualTasks in Vibration Environments. Part IT: Manual Tasks". ISVR Technical ReportNo. 134, Southampton University, UK, 1986.
245. McLeod, R.W. and Griffin, M.J.: "Performance of a Complex Manual Control TaskDuring Exposure to Vertical Vibration Between 0.5 and 5.0 HIz", Ergonomics 31(8):1193-1203, 1988.
246. McLeod, P., Poulton, C., du Ross. If., and Lewis. W.: "The Influence of Ship Motion
on Manual Control Skills", Ergonomics 23(7):623-34, 1980.
247. Meister, A., Br~iuer, D., Kurerov, N.N., Metz. A.-M., Mucke, R., Rothe, R.. Seidel.H., Starozuk, I.A., and Suvorov, G.A.: "Evaluation of Responses to Broad-BandWhole-Body Vibration" Ergonomics 27(9); 959-80, 1984.
248. Moseley, N.J. and Griffin, M.J.: "A Design Guide for Visual Displays and manual
Tasks in Vibration Environments. Part I: Visual Displays", ISVR Technical ReportNo. 133, Southampton University, UK, 1986.
249. Moseley, N.J. and Griffin, M.J.: "Effects of Display Vibration and Whole-Body Vi-bration on Visual Performance", Ergonomics 29(8):977-84, 1986.
250. Moseley, N.J. and Griffin, M.J.: "Whole-Body Vibration and Visual Performance: anExamination of Spatial Filtering and Time Dependency", Ergonomics 30(-1):613-26.1987.
60
251. Oborne, D.A.: "A Critical Assessment of Studies Relating Whole-Body Vibration toPassenger Comfort", Ergonomics 19(C):751-74, 1976.
252. Oborne, D.J.: "Vibration and Passenger Comfort", Applied Ergonomics 8(2):97-101.1977
253. Oborne, D.J.: "The Stability of Equal Sensation Contours for Whole-Body Vibra-tion", Ergonomics 21(8):651-8, 1978.
254. Oborne, D.J. and Boarer, P.A.: "Variability in Human Response to Whole-BodyVibrations. The Effects of Instructions.", Ergonomics 25(7):759-69,1982.
255. Oborne, D.J., Boarer, P. and Heath, T.O.: "Variations in Response to Whole-BodyVibration. Intensity Dependent Effects", Ergonomics 24(7); 523-31, 1981.
256. Oborne, D.J. and Humphreys, D.A.: "Individual Variability in Human Response toWhule-Body Vibration", Ergonomics 19(6):719-26, 1976.
257. O'Hanlon, J.F., Miller, J.C., and Royal. J.W.: "Effects of Simulated Surface EffectShip Motions on Crew Habitability - Phase II. Volume 4: Crew Cognitive Functions.Physiological Stress. and Sleep", Human Factors Research Inc., report TR 1757-2,under NAVSEA contract N00014-74-C-0450. May 1977.
258. Oman, C.M.: "A Heuristic Mathematical Model for the Dynamics of Sensory Conflictand Motion Sickness", Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Stockh) Supplement 392, 1962.
259. Parsons, K.C. and Griffin, M.J.: "The Effect of Rotational Vibration in Roll andPitch Axes on the Discomfort of Seated Subjects", Ergonomics 21(8):615-25, 1978.
260. Parsons, K.C. and Griffin, M.J.: "Vibration and Comfort II: Rotational Seat Vibra-tion", Ergonomics 25(7):631-44, 1982.
261. Parsons, K.C., Griffin, M.J., and Whitman, E.M.: "Vibration and Comfort III: Trans-lational Vibration of Feet and Back", Ergonomics 25(7):705-20. 1982.
262. Parsons, K.C., Whitman, E.M., and Griffin. M.J.: "Six Axis Vehicle Vibration andits Effpcts on Comfort", Ergonomics 22(2):211-26, 1979.
263. Payne, P.R.: "On Quantizing Ride Comfort and Allowable Accelerations", Payne.Inc., Report W.P. No. 196-6 (DTNSRDC contract N00167-76-M-8390), July 1976.
264. Rao, B.K.N. and Jones, B.: "An Equal Sensation Study of Selected Subjects in ThreeTranslational Modes", Ergonomics 21(2):123-34, 1978.
265. Riedel, S.A., Magdaleno, R.E., and Jex, H.R.: "User's Guide to BIODYN-80;An In-teractive Software package for Modeling Biodynamic Feedthrough to a Pilot's Hands.Head, and Eyes", US Air Force Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFBOH, Report No. AFAMRL-TR-81-59, 1981.
266. Rinalducci, E.J.: "Effects of Aircraft Motion on Passengers' Comfort Ratings andResponse Times", Perceptual and Motor Skills 50(1):91-7, 1980.
61
267. Sapov, I.A. and Kuleshov, V.I.: "Seasickness and Efficiency of the Crew of a SurfaceVessel", Military Medical Journal (Voenno-Meditsinskiv Zhurnal) 4:88-91. 1975.
268. Seidel, H., Bastek, R., Braider, D., Buchholz, Ch., Mcister, A., Metz, A.-M., andRothe, R.: "On Human Response to Prolonged Repeated Whole-Body Vibration-.Ergonomics 23(3):191-211, 1980.
269. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Effects of Vibration on Complex Psychomotor Performance".Aerospace Medicine, 38:1264-9, December 1967.
270. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Subjective Response to Very Low Frequency Vibrations", Avi-ation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 46(6): 785-90, June 1975.
271. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Comparison of the Subjective Intensity of Sinusoidal, Multi-Frequency and Random Whole-Body Vibration", Aviation, Space, and EnvironmentalMedicine 47(8):856-62, 1976.
272. Shoenberger, R.WN.: "Intensity Judgements of Nonsinusoidal Vibrations: Support forthe ISO Weighting Method", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 49(11)1327-30, 1978.
273. Shoenberger, R.W.: "Psychophysical Comparison of Vertical and Angular Vibra-tions", Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 51(8), August 1980.
274. Smith. C.C., McGehee, D.Y., and Healey, A.J.: "The Prediction of Passenger RidingComfort from Acceleration Data", Transactions of the American Society of MechanicalEngineers, Journal of Dynamic Systems 100(1):34-41, 1978.
275. St. Denis, M.: "On the Environmental Operability of Sea-Going Systems", SNAME
Technical and Research Bulletin 1-32, January 1976.
276. SNAME "Ship Vibration and Noise Guidelines", SNAME Technical and ResearchBulletin 2-25, January 1980.
277. Stark, D.R.: "Ride Quality Characterization and Evaluation in the Low trequewlcyRegime with Applications to Marine Vehicles", Conference on Egronomics and Trans-port, Swansea, 1980.
278. Stark, D.R.: "Marine Vehicle Ride Quality: A State-of-the-Art Assessment", Trans-portation Research Record 894, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 19S2.
279. US DOD "Military Specification: Fl-ght Contro! Systems". MIL-F-9499D June 1975.
280. US DOD, "Military Standard, Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Sys-tems, Equipment and Facilities", MIL-STD-1472C, May 1981.
281. von Gierke, II.E.: "The ISO Standard Guide foi the Evaluation of Human Exposure toWhole-Body Vibration", Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Report AFAMRL-TR-75-17, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, February 1975.
62
282. Warhurst, F. and Cerasani, A.J.: "Evaluation of the Performance of Human Operatorsas a Function of Ship Motion", ELECLAB 225/68, NAVSEC (SEC 6165C4), April1969.
283. Wiker, S.F. and Pepper, R.L.: "Changes in Crew Performance, Physiology and Affec-tive State due to Motion Aboard a Small Monohull Vessel", USCG Technical ReportNo. CG-D-75-78, 1978.
284. Wiker, S.F., Pepper, R.L. and McCauley, M.E.: "A Vessel Class Comparison of Phys-iological, Affective State and Psychomotor Performance Changes in Men at Sea",USCG Report USCG-D-07-81, August 1980.
285. Woods, A.G.: "Hum tn Response to Low Frequency Sinusoidal and RandomVibration", Aircraft Engineering, pp 6-14, 1967.
286. Yonekawa, Y. and Miwa, T.: "Sensational Responses to Sinusoidal Whole-Body Vi-brations with Ultra Low Frequencies", Industrial Health (Japan) 10:63-76, 1972.
63
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM(highest classification of Title. Abstract. Keywords)
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA(Security classification of title, body 01 asbftrei and indexirtc annotation must be erdered when the overall documenT is clasified)
1. ORIGINATOR (the name and address of the organlzatlon preparing the document. 2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (overall securityOrganizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Establishment sponsoring l classification of the document. includingcontractors report, or tasking agency, are entered In section 8.) special warning terms If applicable)
Defence Research Establishment AtlanticP.O. Box 1012 UNCLASSIFIEDDartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z7
TITLE (the complete document title as Indicated on the title page. Its classlfication should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation(S,CR or U) in parentheses after the title.)
Human Factors in the Naval Environment: A Review of Motion Sicknessand Biodynamic Problems
4. AUTHORS (Last name, first name. middle initial. If military, show rank. e.g. Doe, Maj. John E.)
Colwell, James L.
5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (month and year of publication of document) 6aNO. OF PAGES (total containing 6b NO. OF REFS (total cited ininformation. Include Annexes, document)
September 1989 Appendices. etc.) 70 286
6. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (the category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropnate. enter the type ofreport, e.g. interim, progress. summary, annual or final. Give the Inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.)
Technical Memorandum
8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (the name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development. Include theaddress )
a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (if appropnate, the applicable research and 9b. CONTRACT NO. ( if appropriate, the applicable number underdevelopment protect or grant number under which the document was which the document was written)
written. Please specify whether project or grant)
1AG-13
10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCI",;cNT NUMBER (the otficial document 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NOS. (any oqher numbers which may benumber by which the document is identified by the originating assigned this document either by the onginator or by theactivity. Tnis number must be uniqu6 to this document.) sponsor)
DREA Technical Memorandum 89/220
1 DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by secuntyclassification)
X ) Unlimited distributionDistribution limited to defence departments and defence contractors; further distribution only as approvedDistribution limited to defence departments and Canadian defence contractors; further distnbution only as approvedDistribution limited to government departments and agencies; further distribution only as approved
- ( ) Distribution limited to defence departments; further distribution only as approvedOther (please specify):
1,?.. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (any limitations to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to theDocument Availability (11). However, whlere futher distribution (beyond the audience specified in 11) Is possible, a wider announcementaudisnca may be selected.)
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURIrTY CLASSIFICATION OF FORMDCDD3 2106'87
65
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM
13. ABSTRACT (a brif and tactual summary ofthedocumentrt I"maylso appearelsewte'e in the body of the dcumelitself. Ieis hghly desiale that the abetract ofclasslifed document be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shal begin w•eh an indation of the secuity classification of the information i the pnragralh(untles the documet bself is unclassified) mpreserned as (S), (C). (R), or (U). It is not necessary to Include here abstracts in both ofticiallanguages unless the telt abilingual).
Two types of motion-induced problems affecting human performance in the navalenvironment are reviewed; motion sickness and biodynamic problems. Methods forpredicting the incidence of motion sickness are described and evaluated, and problemsassociated with modeling complex motions are discussed. References for quantifyinghabituation are cited and methods for defining the severity of motion sickness symptomsare described. Biodynamic problems are briefly discussed, including the low-frequency,large-amplitude problems of motion-induced interruptions (MNI) and fatigue; and thehigher-frequency problems of manual control and vision. Methodologies and criteria forevaluating human performance within the systems approach to seakeeping assessment arediscussed and topics for future work are recommended.
14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (mchnicaiy meanir ul terts or short phrases that characlenze a documers and could be helpful in catalogingthe document. They should be selected so that no security classificaton , ris red. Idenlifeis, such as eqwpment model designation, trade nart, miliary pmoect codename, geographic ldcation may also be included I possbe keywords shol be selected from a published thesaurus e g Thesaurus of Engneering and Scientific Terms(TEST) and tha tihesaurus-idervilfed If i nor possble to select rdexing terms which are Unclasised, the clessifc.aton of each should be Indicated as with the tde)
seakeepingmotion sicknessmotion-induced interruptionMEI
fatiguewhole-body vibrationWBVhuman performancemanual controlvision
UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM
66